Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
Ever considered the possibility that the doctros are unhappy about being ordered to implement a new and unauthorised treatment for which they are professionally liable? Edit: and one that is by definition untested even by the current standards. I.e. human experimentation. On whgich they are v. sensitive.
Anything goes wrong - an allergic reaction - they have no defence at all.
It may well be that their administrators (for commercial chains of GP practices) and/or insurers are making noises.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
Hmm. Do nearly 40% of the UK’s population die every year? If 3% of those who test positive die in 28 days after that, and it has nothing to do with that test, then those 28 days are nothing special and shouldn’t differ from the rest of the year. 13 x 4 weeks = 52 weeks. 13 x 3% = 39%.
So, if that hypothesis (the test being positive is unrelated to the death in these vases) is true, then 39% of Brits die every year, and even with births, the country will be completely depopulated in 2 and a half years.
I think we can reject that hypothesis.
Could you please stop thinking and using those ugly number things?
You are going to Hurt The Feelings of a COVID denier and Feelings are more important than your silly Fact things.
I want this argument to be right, but it does assume that the tested are a representative sample of the population overall, does it not?
There’s no significant reason why not. People go in for tests or have them administered through all demographics and areas.
Yes, but they are not randomly selected. They get tested because they think they are ill with covid-19 or are going in to hospital for some other reason (i.e. are or might be or have been ill with something else).
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
...
No. Obviously.
"We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the fact we are now in disaster medicine mode. We are no longer providing high standard critical care, because we cannot. While this is far from ideal, it’s the way things are, and the way they have to be for now."
Short of saying "we are triaging by coin-toss and euthanasing the losers" how could this possibly be worse?
Hmm. Do nearly 40% of the UK’s population die every year? If 3% of those who test positive die in 28 days after that, and it has nothing to do with that test, then those 28 days are nothing special and shouldn’t differ from the rest of the year. 13 x 4 weeks = 52 weeks. 13 x 3% = 39%.
So, if that hypothesis (the test being positive is unrelated to the death in these vases) is true, then 39% of Brits die every year, and even with births, the country will be completely depopulated in 2 and a half years.
I think we can reject that hypothesis.
Could you please stop thinking and using those ugly number things?
You are going to Hurt The Feelings of a COVID denier and Feelings are more important than your silly Fact things.
I want this argument to be right, but it does assume that the tested are a representative sample of the population overall, does it not?
There’s no significant reason why not. People go in for tests or have them administered through all demographics and areas.
Yes, but they are not randomly selected. They get tested because they think they are ill with covid-19 or are going in to hospital for some other reason (i.e. are or might be or have been ill with something else).
Which is why we have the ONS survey. The results of which match all the other data.
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
They want to vaccinate people in the way recommended by the manufacturer, to protect people from a killer disease.
For non-medical reasons, they have been ordered to take a different approach.
Why are they being unreasonable in objecting? They seem eminently sensible to me.
"Scotland didn't vote for Brexit" No, nor did London because it was a vote of the whole United Kingdom. People in Scotland voted as citizens of the UK. Like everywhere else.
One is a city and the other is a country. Apart from that, killer point.
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
Ever considered the possibility that the doctros are unhappy about being ordered to implement a new and unauthorised treatment for which they are professionally liable? Edit: and one that is by definition untested even by the current standards. I.e. human experimentation. On whgich they are v. sensitive.
Anything goes wrong - an allergic reaction - they have no defence at all.
It may well be that their administrators (for commercial chains of GP practices) and/or insurers are making noises.
I’m not sure where I saw it - or if it was even for the UK - but I thought it had been said that there was no legal liability for anyone on the vaccination programme.
Just noticed the cases figures for today. They look horrendous!
Considering Wales' figure is only (!) 1800, England must be suffering really badly. Do you think the Welsh figure going down is due to the earlier lockdown? Or lack of new variant? I notice the case rate per 100,000 over the last 7 days for England and Wales are very similar now. Perhaps Drakeford will stop being slagged off as much.
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
I'm not unsympathetic, but the NHS postponing things at late notice is hardly an unusual phenomenon. I have relatives who had important but elective surgery postponed at 24 hours notice several times.
--AS
Equivalent to the government blaming Covid for delays in the courts system perhaps, at least to a degree?
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
They want to vaccinate people in the way recommended by the manufacturer, to protect people from a killer disease.
For non-medical reasons, they have been ordered to take a different approach.
Why are they being unreasonable in objecting? They seem eminently sensible to me.
They don't actually. They're not objecting to taking another approach. They actually reiterate that they're happy with the other approach.
They're only objecting to rescheduling pre-booked appointments. Because the NHS has never cancelled an appointment before.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
And before the usual suspects get going - PHE took the approach of lumping all the vaccinations between the 8th and the 13th into the week ending the 20th. Rather than a separate part week. So the England numbers look down, but probably aren't (apart from a Christmas Effect)
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
They want to vaccinate people in the way recommended by the manufacturer, to protect people from a killer disease.
For non-medical reasons, they have been ordered to take a different approach.
Why are they being unreasonable in objecting? They seem eminently sensible to me.
Prescribing off licence is quite common, and I do it all the time, but the medico-legal risk is with the prescriber.
Mostly though it is front line doctors who are faced with the angry and confused who were promised a second dose, and telling them that it will be 3 months. It isn't BoZo who will be getting earache.
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
Ever considered the possibility that the doctros are unhappy about being ordered to implement a new and unauthorised treatment for which they are professionally liable? Edit: and one that is by definition untested even by the current standards. I.e. human experimentation. On whgich they are v. sensitive.
Anything goes wrong - an allergic reaction - they have no defence at all.
It may well be that their administrators (for commercial chains of GP practices) and/or insurers are making noises.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
Just noticed the cases figures for today. They look horrendous!
Considering Wales' figure is only (!) 1800, England must be suffering really badly. Do you think the Welsh figure going down is due to the earlier lockdown? Or lack of new variant? I notice the case rate per 100,000 over the last 7 days for England and Wales are very similar now. Perhaps Drakeford will stop being slagged off as much.
New cases reported 31/12 Eng 49,510 NI 1,929 Scot 2,622 Wal 1,831
New cases reported 24/12 Eng 35,561 NI 841 Scot 1,314 Wal 2,161
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
And before the usual suspects get going - PHE took the approach of lumping all the vaccinations between the 8th and the 13th into the week ending the 20th. Rather than a separate part week. So the England numbers look down, but probably aren't (apart from a Christmas Effect)
Further - assuming that the ratios are holding, that means about 20% of the over 80s have received a first dose, as of the 27th.
Given that the NHS has 415K nurses and doctors (approx) - this means that somewhere north of 11% of NHS staff agave received a first dose. It could be as high as 20%.
This is because previously they were "filling in" gaps in vaccinating the over 80s with NHS staff - and apparently averaging about 70% of the over 80s, not 75%
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
I endorse this message. On a strictly one year, one off basis. I am 54.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Why not just raise income tax - or are multi-millionaire airport-thriller writers a protected class? Asking for several million friends.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
Family doctors are rebelling against a “grossly unfair” NHS decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week.
GP leaders have encouraged doctors to defy NHS advice and press ahead with booster doses already booked, saying that it is wrong to disappoint vulnerable people at the last minute.
NHS bosses are holding firm, arguing that prioritising giving the first dose to more people will save thousands of lives.
Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines require two doses for full protection, but in a significant shift of strategy yesterday ministers said that the NHS should aim to give as many first doses as possible rather than ensure that people had the second within the recommended three or four weeks.
So far 786,000 people have had a first dose, with 264,406 vaccinated over Christmas week. NHS chiefs are pledging that most people living in care homes will be vaccinated within four weeks as they prioritise people over 80 and health and care staff.
Vaccination centres, however, have been told to cancel anyone booked in for a second dose from Monday.
Richard Vautrey, head of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said that it was “grossly and patently unfair” to reschedule the appointments of tens of thousands of vulnerable patients.
“Local leaders are telling us that is unprofessional and impractical to amend the appointments for thousands of frail elderly patients,” he said.
“The existing commitment made to these patients by the NHS and local clinicians should be respected. If GPs decide to honour these booked appointments in January the BMA will support them. The government must see that it’s only right that existing bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society are honoured.”
Dr Vautrey said that the change in strategy would cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. “For example, to make contact with even just 2,000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable,” he said.
The BMA is not opposing the whole of the new strategy, saying that it would be easier to cancel appointments booked further in the future and that it was supportive of prioritising first doses. Dr Vautrey said that many doctors still needed to be convinced and that the government should “as soon as possible publish a scientifically validated justification for its new approach”.
Which group of public servants we rely on to get through this mess are the government going to piss off next?
That post does not show you in a good light. You have every right to be annoyed about the way the school situation has been handled. The BMA on the other hand can go fuck themselves.
They want to vaccinate people in the way recommended by the manufacturer, to protect people from a killer disease.
For non-medical reasons, they have been ordered to take a different approach.
Why are they being unreasonable in objecting? They seem eminently sensible to me.
Prescribing off licence is quite common, and I do it all the time, but the medico-legal risk is with the prescriber.
Mostly though it is front line doctors who are faced with the angry and confused who were promised a second dose, and telling them that it will be 3 months. It isn't BoZo who will be getting earache.
Rather a shame we still appear to be having more infections than vaccinations per week, particular once you allow for those not tested for.
There's a big political decision ahead that will need to be made: at what point to we relax restrictions? When hospitalisations fall or when we no longer have a large number of daily cases?
Because it is likely that most vunerable people will be vaccinated (and so hospitalisations down) long before most under 60s get vaccinated. Under 60s make up 75% of the population make up only 6% of Covid deaths (source: ONS weekly deaths), and I imagine a fair few of those fall under pre-existing conditions and so will be higher up the queue.
There will surely be a tipping point at which there is pressure to relax restrictions despite the virus continuing to run rampant.
Those of us who are under 45 are likely to see restrictions heavily relaxed before vaccination - but the pressure will be to vaccinate the 45s to 65 (or at least 50 to 65) before too much relaxation of restrictions.
The 45 to 65 age group provides a much greater proportion of hospitalisations than it does deaths. If the pressure on the NHS is hospitalisations then they will want I assume to get that done ASAP before relaxing too much.
Fair point (as was Andy Cooke's). The proportion of death falls to 1.9% for under 50s so perhaps your cut-off point is more likely, especially if hospitalisations are proportionally larger for this group.
From what I can tell from ONS data, hospitalisations for under 45s make up a small of the total as well.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
I’d agree that somewhere between under 50 and under 45. But if transmission is curtailed by vaccines, I reckon we could see restrictions gradually lifted from about 15 million vaccinated onwards (so, around groups 1-5 inclusive)
And before the usual suspects get going - PHE took the approach of lumping all the vaccinations between the 8th and the 13th into the week ending the 20th. Rather than a separate part week. So the England numbers look down, but probably aren't (apart from a Christmas Effect)
If we can get to 10 million vaccinations as soon as possible it should have a big effect on the case and death statistics, assuming the most vulnerable 10 million people are vaccinated first.
"Scotland didn't vote for Brexit" No, nor did London because it was a vote of the whole United Kingdom. People in Scotland voted as citizens of the UK. Like everywhere else.
The Scots had a chance to leave the UK in 2014, but chose not to take it. That vote had consequences - in 2016.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
The age profile for admissions doesn't seem massively different -
"Scotland didn't vote for Brexit" No, nor did London because it was a vote of the whole United Kingdom. People in Scotland voted as citizens of the UK. Like everywhere else.
The Scots had a chance to leave the UK in 2014, but chose not to take it. That vote had consequences - in 2016.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
The age profile for admissions doesn't seem massively different -
But why should it change ?
It might be interesting to know the ratio of hospitalisations to deaths and the average length of hospitalisation.
And how they compare between spring and currently.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
The age profile for admissions doesn't seem massively different -
But why should it change ?
It might be interesting to know the ratio of hospitalisations to deaths and the average length of hospitalisation.
And how they compare between spring and currently.
Don't forget treatment has changed between spring and now too. Dexamethysone (sp?), trying to avoid ventillation etc - many lessons learnt.
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
Just noticed the cases figures for today. They look horrendous!
Considering Wales' figure is only (!) 1800, England must be suffering really badly. Do you think the Welsh figure going down is due to the earlier lockdown? Or lack of new variant? I notice the case rate per 100,000 over the last 7 days for England and Wales are very similar now. Perhaps Drakeford will stop being slagged off as much.
Or, of course, we could take note of what Public Health Wales said as they released the figures today..
"Due to a lag in receiving data, cases sampled in recent days will not be fully reflected in these data, so the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate."
As regards Drakeford, the problem is not that so much that he has handled it particularly badly -- in truth, most countries in Western Europe have done badly & Drakeford is slap in the middle of the pack.
The problem is that there are posters who tell us how much better Labour would have done in handling the pandemic than the Tories.
In which case, it is reasonable to point out that Labour could show us how good they are by explicit example in the one part of the UK in which they are in Government.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
The age profile for admissions doesn't seem massively different -
But why should it change ?
It might be interesting to know the ratio of hospitalisations to deaths and the average length of hospitalisation.
And how they compare between spring and currently.
I *think*, from the US experience, it is possible that hospital deaths per x have gone down, due to better treatment.
But Foxy would be much better to ask on that, obviously.
I expect that we *will* see a new peak in deaths - a week or 2 from now. Sadly, it seems inevitable.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Paradoxically, imposing wealth taxes may be counterproductive, in the sense that if someone knows they're going to have to pay a large wealth tax bill after their death, they may decide to spend most of their wealth while they're alive, rather than passing it on to their relatives with the large tax bill.
Mrs Stodge and I have written off the first part of next year but I agree with those who argue there will be a rapid return to whatever normal will become.
Call it a "Tipping Point" if you like but I expect we will see deaths and hospitalisations fall first even if positive results continue to be considerable in the unvaccinated population.
Combine vaccination with better weather and May-June seems a reasonable time for restrictions to be rapidly eased.
However, no one has yet explained whether we will need another vaccination next winter or whether this vaccination will provide a longer period of protection.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Why not just raise income tax - or are multi-millionaire airport-thriller writers a protected class? Asking for several million friends.
Perhaps combined with a sales tax on bespoke flint-knapped sex toys?
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
Yes, I think that is so. In particular we now recognise that silent hypoxia and dehydration are both under recognised signs of severe disease.
I would recommend that all houses have a pulse oximeter and a BP cuff in their medicine cupboard. Both are vital for knowing when a mild illness turns nasty.
My guess is that the Republicans win both. But then you already know that.
That is my guess too. That being said, I do wonder if Georgia is about to become a Purple state.
It's possible at the Presidential level. Now that Democrats have learned that they can win there they may be more inclined to vote. But the Democratic record in run offs is absymal. They have never won one for the Senate. I personally believe the run off system is designed that way. It penalises a party who may be able to get their marginal voters out for the President but not for anything else.
Its also worth reflecting on how Texas was supposedly going purple. It wasn't. Not even close.
My guess is that the Republicans win both. But then you already know that.
That is my guess too. That being said, I do wonder if Georgia is about to become a Purple state.
It's possible at the Presidential level. Now that Democrats have learned that they can win there they may be more inclined to vote. But the Democratic record in run offs is absymal. They have never won one for the Senate. I personally believe the run off system is designed that way. It penalises a party who may be able to get their marginal voters out for the President but not for anything else.
Its also worth reflecting on how Texas was supposedly going purple. It wasn't. Not even close.
Texas was Democrat in the Presidential Elections of 1960 - 1964 - and 1968. Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator there in 1988 and Ann Richards was Democrat Governor until 1994.
I hate to break it to you, time flies for us all, but the last of those was 26 years ago and the fluff about Biden having a chance there proved to be exactly that.
My guess is that the Republicans win both. But then you already know that.
That is my guess too. That being said, I do wonder if Georgia is about to become a Purple state.
It's possible at the Presidential level. Now that Democrats have learned that they can win there they may be more inclined to vote. But the Democratic record in run offs is absymal. They have never won one for the Senate. I personally believe the run off system is designed that way. It penalises a party who may be able to get their marginal voters out for the President but not for anything else.
Its also worth reflecting on how Texas was supposedly going purple. It wasn't. Not even close.
My guess is that the Republicans win both. But then you already know that.
That is my guess too. That being said, I do wonder if Georgia is about to become a Purple state.
It's possible at the Presidential level. Now that Democrats have learned that they can win there they may be more inclined to vote. But the Democratic record in run offs is absymal. They have never won one for the Senate. I personally believe the run off system is designed that way. It penalises a party who may be able to get their marginal voters out for the President but not for anything else.
Its also worth reflecting on how Texas was supposedly going purple. It wasn't. Not even close.
Texas was Democrat in the Presidential Elections of 1960 - 1964 - and 1968. Lloyd Bentsen was elected Senator there in 1988 and Ann Richards was Democrat Governor until 1994.
I hate to break it to you, time flies for us all, but the last of those was 26 years ago and the fluff about Biden having a chance there proved to be exactly that.
I totally agree re- time flying, but the idea that Texas has been a Republican stronghold for ever and a day is much exaggerated. Hubert Humphrey carried the state in 1968 despite losing the national election. Carter's Southern roots doubtless helped him to prevail there in 1976, but the Democrats have had success more recently in elections for the Senate and Governor. Under George Bush the Republicans appeared totally dominant there , but the last decade has seen the pendulum swing back to the Democrats. The state is probably now a better longterm prospect for them than Missouri.
In this context, perhaps worth pointing out that Republican former Governor, former GOP presidential candidate former Trumpsky Sec of Energy RICK PERRY was first elected to the Texas state house in 1984 - as a Democrat. Indeed, in 1988 he endorsed Al Gore for President.
However, Perry switched parties in 1989 - a clear sign that the times they were a changing.
Of course Democrat Ann Richards WAS election Governor in 1990. However, her victory was largely due to the fact that her GOP opponent was an idiot, plus her own celebrity following her speech to the 1988 Democratic National Convention ("Poor George [HW Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.") AND she was defeated for re-election in 1994, by George W. Bush no less.
BTW, that was the same year that progressive-populist Democrat Jim Hightower was defeated for election as TX state agricultural commissioner by newly-minted Republican Rick Perry.
Further note that at present, out of more than two dozen Texas statewide elected officials (including justices) all but one are Republican - and THAT office is currently vacant! In fact, think it's been a least twenty years since the Lone State State elected a Democrat to ANY statewide office.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
ADDENDUM In interests of semi-full disclosure, must point out yours truly was convinced that Democrats would make gains this year in the Lone State State, including flipping a few US House seats AND taking control of the TX sHouse of Reps.
And before the usual suspects get going - PHE took the approach of lumping all the vaccinations between the 8th and the 13th into the week ending the 20th. Rather than a separate part week. So the England numbers look down, but probably aren't (apart from a Christmas Effect)
If we can get to 10 million vaccinations as soon as possible it should have a big effect on the case and death statistics, assuming the most vulnerable 10 million people are vaccinated first.
- Over 80s made up 54% of the deaths in the whole epidemic. - The clinical data from the Pfizer vaccine trails showed that 1 dose would provide immunity for more than 50%. - There are 3.2 million of them
So we should expect a reduction in deaths of 27%+, once 1 dose for all 3.2 million over 80s (or close to) is reached.
If these numbers are correct, we should see in the near future a drop in mortality rate of 6%+ from the over 80s who have received this first dose already.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Why not just raise income tax - or are multi-millionaire airport-thriller writers a protected class? Asking for several million friends.
Perhaps combined with a sales tax on bespoke flint-knapped sex toys?
And skiing holidays ?
We have a plan.
As long as we include my long mooted idea for a 2,566,677,445% tax on Tuscan villas owned by Guardian columnists.
One of the City's most prominent hedge fund managers is preparing to invest millions of pounds in GB News, the fledgling current broadcasting company which is targeting a launch into British homes next year.
Sky News has learnt that Sir Paul Marshall, the co-founder of Marshall Wace, is in advanced talks about injecting approximately £10m into GB News.
I really don't see this. The likes of Sky News gets tiny audiences. There is already the BBC, who have the size to smash most competition and a range of smaller competition from Sky, to Talk Radio, to Times Radio to LBC, and big bad Uncle Rupert is launching News UK.
I’m not quite sure how the economics work either, but perhaps the channel itself is merely a loss-making way to produce covidiot and brexity culture war fodder for more profitable use elsewhere.
Just what we need, even more boomer radicalisation.
To be fair to the post war generation, it does have to be said that a lot of the current generation of radical older conservatives are really a little younger than the classic boomers as they used to be understood, at around 50-65.
My son calls me a boomer, and I am 45.
My son once called me a smackhead in front my colleagues.
He was like 3, and my friend Rob had spent the weekend with us, and he taught my son the phrase 'Your Dad is acting like a smackhead.'
Rob explained to my son that a smackhead is someone who is being silly/naughty and deserves a smack on the head.
My father worked in a laboratory. Unfortunately when I was small I couldn't say that word, so my teacher was under the impression he worked in a a lavatory.
As a very young lad I was asked what my Dad did, in my class. I told them he was a "lecturer".
However I couldn't say the word so I told them he was a "lecherer".
"How dare the government cancel a medical procedure at the the last moment. Only we should be cancelling medical procedures at the last moment!!!!!!"
There may be a perception of government interference in clinical matters. I know of clergy whose instinctive emotional response to the first lock-down was that permitting the government to close churches was the thin end of the wedge leading to religious persecution.
Good evening, everyone, and a very happy New Year to you all.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
My point is less a prediction as to when this will come, but that there will be a tipping point at some point next year. As someone in their early 30s, it will be strange to go out and act normal (and therefore quite likely catch covid) when I've spent over a year doing very little in order to avoid it.
I think this will also make very clear to those paying less attention to details that everyone's sacrifices has been for the older generation. This will surely influence the public mood for when the decision has to be made on where cuts or tax increases need to fall? Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
This point -- with which I strongly agree -- should be made explicitly by the Government now, while the sacrifices are still being made.
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
Do you think all over 55's are wealthy?
Of course not. A wealth tax is taxed ... err ... on those who are wealthy.
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Paradoxically, imposing wealth taxes may be counterproductive, in the sense that if someone knows they're going to have to pay a large wealth tax bill after their death, they may decide to spend most of their wealth while they're alive, rather than passing it on to their relatives with the large tax bill.
Even better. This would have effect of reducing inheritance and thereby reducing inequality.
More horrendous case and death numbers though we are told it's "a weekend effect" by some. Well, perhaps but the headline figures look bad as do the messages from the NHS however sceptical some may be.
{snip}
It is very very simple
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers - On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down. - A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
It is not simply a lag factor any more. A hospital crisis is not caused by the numbers of hospitalisations in one day, but by the aggregate hospitalisations over a couple of weeks, a large proportion of whom still occupy beds.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
Other possible factors:
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
Yes, I think that is so. In particular we now recognise that silent hypoxia and dehydration are both under recognised signs of severe disease.
I would recommend that all houses have a pulse oximeter and a BP cuff in their medicine cupboard. Both are vital for knowing when a mild illness turns nasty.
The BP cuff has proved really useful - thank you for the recommendation - my elderly mother-in-law had some medical issues, and the prescription required blood pressure checks to allow it to be re-issued....
A video call to the GP practise verified that we had good equipment, and that I was using right technique (!!!!) - so they could re-issue the prescription....
Hmm. Do nearly 40% of the UK’s population die every year? If 3% of those who test positive die in 28 days after that, and it has nothing to do with that test, then those 28 days are nothing special and shouldn’t differ from the rest of the year. 13 x 4 weeks = 52 weeks. 13 x 3% = 39%.
So, if that hypothesis (the test being positive is unrelated to the death in these vases) is true, then 39% of Brits die every year, and even with births, the country will be completely depopulated in 2 and a half years.
I think we can reject that hypothesis.
Could you please stop thinking and using those ugly number things?
You are going to Hurt The Feelings of a COVID denier and Feelings are more important than your silly Fact things.
I want this argument to be right, but it does assume that the tested are a representative sample of the population overall, does it not?
There’s no significant reason why not. People go in for tests or have them administered through all demographics and areas.
Yes, but they are not randomly selected. They get tested because they think they are ill with covid-19 or are going in to hospital for some other reason (i.e. are or might be or have been ill with something else).
Which is why we have the ONS survey. The results of which match all the other data.
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
The Tweet exaggerates the email taking a line out of context then hinting that the whole email is "SHOCKING" rather than the most 'shocking' line being the one quoted out of context.
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
Can you really smoke Jimson Weed ?
It must be like eating Death Cap Risotto.
YOU can smoke as much as you like! Though PLEASE refrain from operating heavy machinery!
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
The Tweet exaggerates the email taking a line out of context then hinting that the whole email is "SHOCKING" rather than the most 'shocking' line being the one quoted out of context.
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
All quotation is "out of context."
When you put this one back into context, what specific part of the context renders it less shocking than the standalone quote?
In this context, perhaps worth pointing out that Republican former Governor, former GOP presidential candidate former Trumpsky Sec of Energy RICK PERRY was first elected to the Texas state house in 1984 - as a Democrat. Indeed, in 1988 he endorsed Al Gore for President.
However, Perry switched parties in 1989 - a clear sign that the times they were a changing.
Of course Democrat Ann Richards WAS election Governor in 1990. However, her victory was largely due to the fact that her GOP opponent was an idiot, plus her own celebrity following her speech to the 1988 Democratic National Convention ("Poor George [HW Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.") AND she was defeated for re-election in 1994, by George W. Bush no less.
BTW, that was the same year that progressive-populist Democrat Jim Hightower was defeated for election as TX state agricultural commissioner by newly-minted Republican Rick Perry.
Further note that at present, out of more than two dozen Texas statewide elected officials (including justices) all but one are Republican - and THAT office is currently vacant! In fact, think it's been a least twenty years since the Lone State State elected a Democrat to ANY statewide office.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
ADDENDUM In interests of semi-full disclosure, must point out yours truly was convinced that Democrats would make gains this year in the Lone State State, including flipping a few US House seats AND taking control of the TX sHouse of Reps.
Sadly, did NOT happen.
Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016 and this year he won by 5.5% so that's a swing of 1.75% to the Democrats. In 2012, when Obama beat Romney by national vote shares not wildly different to this year's contest, Romney won Texas by 17 points so the gap has closed.
For context, Trump beat Clinton nationally by 2.1% in 2016 and this time Biden has won by 4.5% so that's a swing of 1.2% to the Democrats so Biden did slightly better than the national swing in Texas.
Over the last few years a number of friends and political colleagues in my village have been given awards in the New Years Honours list. An MBE, a BEM , and today an OBE. I know a peerage is out of the question but surely I must be in line for a knighthood?
In this context, perhaps worth pointing out that Republican former Governor, former GOP presidential candidate former Trumpsky Sec of Energy RICK PERRY was first elected to the Texas state house in 1984 - as a Democrat. Indeed, in 1988 he endorsed Al Gore for President.
However, Perry switched parties in 1989 - a clear sign that the times they were a changing.
Of course Democrat Ann Richards WAS election Governor in 1990. However, her victory was largely due to the fact that her GOP opponent was an idiot, plus her own celebrity following her speech to the 1988 Democratic National Convention ("Poor George [HW Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.") AND she was defeated for re-election in 1994, by George W. Bush no less.
BTW, that was the same year that progressive-populist Democrat Jim Hightower was defeated for election as TX state agricultural commissioner by newly-minted Republican Rick Perry.
Further note that at present, out of more than two dozen Texas statewide elected officials (including justices) all but one are Republican - and THAT office is currently vacant! In fact, think it's been a least twenty years since the Lone State State elected a Democrat to ANY statewide office.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
ADDENDUM In interests of semi-full disclosure, must point out yours truly was convinced that Democrats would make gains this year in the Lone State State, including flipping a few US House seats AND taking control of the TX sHouse of Reps.
Sadly, did NOT happen.
Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016 and this year he won by 5.5% so that's a swing of 1.75% to the Democrats. In 2012, when Obama beat Romney by national vote shares not wildly different to this year's contest, Romney won Texas by 17 points so the gap has closed.
For context, Trump beat Clinton nationally by 2.1% in 2016 and this time Biden has won by 4.5% so that's a swing of 1.2% to the Democrats so Biden did slightly better than the national swing in Texas.
True. BUT note that Trumpsky lost a BOATLOAD of votes in the suburbs, which were the seedbed for Republicanism in Texas back when local yokels in the boondocks (like Rick Perry) were still backing Ozone Man. THESE were the voters who sent George Bush the Elder to Congress in the 1960s.
This year, not enough of them switched to defeat Trumpsky (though they did trim his margin). AND certainly even many who chose Biden at the top of the ticket, stayed with the GOP further down the ballot.
Reminds me of how in WA State back in the the 1980s and 1990s, popular statewide Democrats did pretty well in the affluent Seattle suburbs of East King County. Yet when it came to Congressional and legislative races, Democrats either got stomped OR didn't even bother to run.
Took a few more decades for pro-Dem suburban trend to play itself out, before Republican dominance with these voters MOST of the time was undermined, and finally destroyed.
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
The Tweet exaggerates the email taking a line out of context then hinting that the whole email is "SHOCKING" rather than the most 'shocking' line being the one quoted out of context.
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
All quotation is "out of context."
When you put this one back into context, what specific part of the context renders it less shocking than the standalone quote?
This part:
Dear all,
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
There are a few developments we wanted to update you with:
Further expansion. We have always had robust(ish) plans to staff 90 beds, which is where we are now. The new strain and failure of tiers have led to an unexpected increase in numbers however. We are going to have to open more beds. NHS London are authorising 1:3 nursing ratios. We are still gathering together enough staff to do so (both medical and nursing), but the next base of operations to open will be half of 15F. In the meantime, we are going to squeeze extra beds in to the existing 15th floor wards.
The ACCU consultant rota will change from next week back to what it was in the first wave. There will be a separate admissions consultant, working alongside the 1113 trainee. The consultant on call overnight will be resident.
We will be sending more regular, probably daily, emails to nurses with some simple facts to try to keep you in the loop. Feel free to ignore this, as really important information will come separately, or in our weekly(ish) emails (the ones with pictures and/or poems). We are also exploring setting up screens in staff rooms to display useful information/encouraging ditties/vaccine updates etc.
We are starting a daily Teams feedback forum in which to raise practical problems, in an attempt to catch these early, and solve the solvable.
[We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the fact we are now in disaster medicine mode. We are no longer providing high standard critical care, because we cannot.] While this is far from ideal, it’s the way things are, and the way they have to be for now.
In terms of how much you do for each patient, discuss this with your nurse in charge and/or the medical team. Some will still need hourly obs, others won’t. Some will still need 4 hourly rolls, but others may be OK with two rolls per shift. This may even change during the shift.
Things are going to get harder before they get better (which they will, eventually). As we get busy, we all tend to reach a limit, in some way or other. Different people will do this in different ways at different times. Bear with them, offer an ear/shoulder (metaphorically of course, while maintaining social distancing!), be understanding. We’ll get through this better by getting through it together.
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
The Tweet exaggerates the email taking a line out of context then hinting that the whole email is "SHOCKING" rather than the most 'shocking' line being the one quoted out of context.
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
All quotation is "out of context."
When you put this one back into context, what specific part of the context renders it less shocking than the standalone quote?
This part:
Dear all,
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
No it doesn't. What, in that lot, modifies or detracts from the words quoted?
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
Can you really smoke Jimson Weed ?
It must be like eating Death Cap Risotto.
YOU can smoke as much as you like! Though PLEASE refrain from operating heavy machinery!
It is not a UK plant (though it occurs in the wild here as an escapee).
The nearest UK plant would be Deadly Nightshade, which has similar levels of atropine.
I would be seriously in awe of someone who smokes Deadly Nightshade Baccy.
Over the last few years a number of friends and political colleagues in my village have been given awards in the New Years Honours list. An MBE, a BEM , and today an OBE. I know a peerage is out of the question but surely I must be in line for a knighthood?
Take a leaf out of Diana's book, and be a knight of peoples' hearts.
JFC Scotland's Covid case numbers have just gone nuclear unless there had been a reporting error.
???
Cases by specimen date have more than doubled in 5 days. Every region is now going up, some trebling their case numbers - and that's for the 29th, reporting not completed yet the actual figure will be higher.
Cockney Covid has come to Scotland and no mistake.
"How dare the government cancel a medical procedure at the the last moment. Only we should be cancelling medical procedures at the last moment!!!!!!"
There may be a perception of government interference in clinical matters. I know of clergy whose instinctive emotional response to the first lock-down was that permitting the government to close churches was the thin end of the wedge leading to religious persecution.
Good evening, everyone, and a very happy New Year to you all.
There is a great deal of government interference in clinical matters. I think they call it the NHS :-)
Over the last few years a number of friends and political colleagues in my village have been given awards in the New Years Honours list. An MBE, a BEM , and today an OBE. I know a peerage is out of the question but surely I must be in line for a knighthood?
Will be happy to address you as "Lord Dingleberry" IF this floats your Lordship's boat.
That Royal London letter has now been published in full.
Does it justify the tweet? [snipped]
QTWAIN. Disguting ambulance chasing media whoring. What a misrepresentation of the email.
I don't understand how it's a misrepresentation. She has included a direct quote from the email, then said it is a shocking situation, which is a statement of opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but how is that misrepresentation?
The Tweet exaggerates the email taking a line out of context then hinting that the whole email is "SHOCKING" rather than the most 'shocking' line being the one quoted out of context.
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
All quotation is "out of context."
When you put this one back into context, what specific part of the context renders it less shocking than the standalone quote?
This part:
Dear all,
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
No it doesn't. What, in that lot, modifies or detracts from the words quoted?
All of it.
Specifically in the paragraph she edited the sentence. It doesn't say "We are now in disaster mode" it actually says "We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the fact we are now in disaster medicine mode" so she snipped out part of the sentence and falsely capitalised the W of the mid-sentence we to falsely imply that was the start of the sentence. It isn't news that they are in disaster mode, that was previously announced and it is being reiterated.
As the paragraph ends then: "While this is far from ideal, it’s the way things are, and the way they have to be for now."
So she took out the fact it was a reiteration of a previous announcement and that they knew that it is the way things are, and the way they have to be for now - to falsely portray a narrative that it is SHOCKING.
JFC Scotland's Covid case numbers have just gone nuclear unless there had been a reporting error.
There seems to be a bit of spike, right at the end of the month...
Shetland is fucked. All these level 1 areas that have been 'safe' have been stealth assaulted by Cockney Covid. The populations just won't have been showing the necessary level of caution, it will be everywhere. Scottish Borders as well - I bet people have been "popping in" to Edinburgh and have brought it back.
Over the last few years a number of friends and political colleagues in my village have been given awards in the New Years Honours list. An MBE, a BEM , and today an OBE. I know a peerage is out of the question but surely I must be in line for a knighthood?
Will be happy to address you as "Lord Dingleberry" IF this floats your Lordship's boat.
With an avatar called 'Slade', shouldn't he be Lord Noddy of Beechdale?
OT, must take issue with OGH when he says that outcome of GA special elections "will have a critical impact on the success of the Biden administration".
Important, heck yes. Critical? Don't agree.
Because even IF Dems flip both of the Peach State seats in US Senate, Uncle Joe will STILL have a monumental task, given the closeness of the numbers, the polarization of the nation AND the continued ravages of COVID, which IMHO will continue through virtually all (if not all) of 2021.
Note that Boris Johnson assures UK that the worst is over, when Joe Biden tells the US the opposite. Which one do YOU believe in more?
Personally, one of the best features re: Biden is his POTENTIAL for being a wheeler-dealer President, thanks to his long and (generally) fruitful senatorial experience.
Haven't PBers lost enough by underestimating Uncle Joe? Sort of the same way Trotskyites lost (even more profoundly) by underestimating the OTHER Uncle Joe??
I think the government has a real problem with the public mood this time round. Some of these figures may be as much to do with this non-co operation as the new strain. Throughout most of the year on outlets like the Daily Mail, for instance, the comments and reader contributions that the virus and lockdowns were an anti-civil liberty hoax were a perspective quite small in number and marginalised.
On several occasions in the last couple of weeks, these views are suddenly hugely increased, even in the majority. Today there are thousands upon thousands of posts quoting conspiracy sites and facebook news, and I think this is starting to come to the surface in the Trump-style "citizen news" of people going around filming what they imagine to be empty wards as part of the conspiracy.
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
To be honest if the four CMO's endorse the change I believe it is hard to argue against
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
To be honest if the four CMO's endorse the change I believe it is hard to argue against
They also argued against mask wearing during the first part of the pandemic.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
Can you really smoke Jimson Weed ?
It must be like eating Death Cap Risotto.
YOU can smoke as much as you like! Though PLEASE refrain from operating heavy machinery!
It is not a UK plant (though it occurs in the wild here as an escapee).
The nearest UK plant would be Deadly Nightshade, which has similar levels of atropine.
I would be seriously in awe of someone who smokes Deadly Nightshade Baccy.
You could always try roast Hemlock Water Dropwort. Apparently it tastes just like parsnip...
We had some growing in the garden but I eventually concluded that cultivating it might be a bad idea.
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
Pfizer can't answer the question, because the answer depends on R.
If R is higher than some threshold, you are always better off giving as many people as possible a single dose.
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
To be honest if the four CMO's endorse the change I believe it is hard to argue against
They also argued against mask wearing during the first part of the pandemic.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
Can you really smoke Jimson Weed ?
It must be like eating Death Cap Risotto.
YOU can smoke as much as you like! Though PLEASE refrain from operating heavy machinery!
It is not a UK plant (though it occurs in the wild here as an escapee).
The nearest UK plant would be Deadly Nightshade, which has similar levels of atropine.
I would be seriously in awe of someone who smokes Deadly Nightshade Baccy.
I don't think it's the right call - I understand the reasoning but I'm not convinced.
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
To be honest if the four CMO's endorse the change I believe it is hard to argue against
I don't believe Pfizer's comment is relevant in the actual context.
The point is to maximize as soon as possible the level of immunity in society. So if Pfizer is 90% effective 12 days after the first shot, and 95% after the 2nd, from a public health perspective, when the pandemic is on the rampage as it currently is, it is better to get more first shots in than to worry about whether delaying a second shot might reduce the increase in effectiveness - even if it renders the second shot of no value.
Comments
Anything goes wrong - an allergic reaction - they have no defence at all.
It may well be that their administrators (for commercial chains of GP practices) and/or insurers are making noises.
The death numbers are thus
The case numbers are thus
The in hospital numbers are thus
So we actually have
- Surprisingly stable death numbers
- On case numbers, the jury is out for about 4 more days to see whether the latest peak is up or down.
- A massive crisis in people in hospital
Because deaths lag hospitalisations which lag cases, we are seeing a peak in hospitalisations caused by the further peak in cases from around the 20th.
This is a wish, not a forecast.
Goodness knows how bad 2021 is going to be. Hopefully by the second half of the year we will be back to some form of normality.
Short of saying "we are triaging by coin-toss and euthanasing the losers" how could this possibly be worse?
For non-medical reasons, they have been ordered to take a different approach.
Why are they being unreasonable in objecting? They seem eminently sensible to me.
Apart from that, killer point.
Just noticed the cases figures for today. They look horrendous!
Considering Wales' figure is only (!) 1800, England must be suffering really badly. Do you think the Welsh figure going down is due to the earlier lockdown? Or lack of new variant? I notice the case rate per 100,000 over the last 7 days for England and Wales are very similar now. Perhaps Drakeford will stop being slagged off as much.
They're only objecting to rescheduling pre-booked appointments. Because the NHS has never cancelled an appointment before.
So, the sharp peak in March/April built up fewer aggregate hospitalisations than the more sustained and gradual peak now. Further to that, the peaks in different regions were within a few days of each other in April, and the winter pressures have been much more regionalised.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
So up to the 27th we were on 944,539 1st doses
And before the usual suspects get going - PHE took the approach of lumping all the vaccinations between the 8th and the 13th into the week ending the 20th. Rather than a separate part week. So the England numbers look down, but probably aren't (apart from a Christmas Effect)
Mostly though it is front line doctors who are faced with the angry and confused who were promised a second dose, and telling them that it will be 3 months. It isn't BoZo who will be getting earache.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349
Enormous sacrifices have been made by the young who are largely unaffected by the disease -- there has been massive disruption of young peoples' education, opportunities, businesses, lives.
The young should now be rewarded at the expense of the old. Absolutely.
A wealth tax on everyone over 55.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55503536
Eng 49,510
NI 1,929
Scot 2,622
Wal 1,831
New cases reported 24/12
Eng 35,561
NI 841
Scot 1,314
Wal 2,161
Otherwise, I would have said income tax.
Given that the NHS has 415K nurses and doctors (approx) - this means that somewhere north of 11% of NHS staff agave received a first dose. It could be as high as 20%.
This is because previously they were "filling in" gaps in vaccinating the over 80s with NHS staff - and apparently averaging about 70% of the over 80s, not 75%
On a strictly one year, one off basis.
I am 54.
1) The infected were told to seek medical care in the spring unless necessary
2) Medical staff now more knowledgeable on treatments to use
I wonder if these are leading to more people being in hospital under treatment whereas in the spring they would have died instead.
But if transmission is curtailed by vaccines, I reckon we could see restrictions gradually lifted from about 15 million vaccinated onwards (so, around groups 1-5 inclusive)
Reports that the Ecuadorean Embassy are preparing a tartan swagged bedroom have yet to be confirmed.
It might be interesting to know the ratio of hospitalisations to deaths and the average length of hospitalisation.
And how they compare between spring and currently.
"Due to a lag in receiving data, cases sampled in recent days will not be fully reflected in these data, so the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate."
As regards Drakeford, the problem is not that so much that he has handled it particularly badly -- in truth, most countries in Western Europe have done badly & Drakeford is slap in the middle of the pack.
The problem is that there are posters who tell us how much better Labour would have done in handling the pandemic than the Tories.
In which case, it is reasonable to point out that Labour could show us how good they are by explicit example in the one part of the UK in which they are in Government.
But Foxy would be much better to ask on that, obviously.
I expect that we *will* see a new peak in deaths - a week or 2 from now. Sadly, it seems inevitable.
Call it a "Tipping Point" if you like but I expect we will see deaths and hospitalisations fall first even if positive results continue to be considerable in the unvaccinated population.
Combine vaccination with better weather and May-June seems a reasonable time for restrictions to be rapidly eased.
However, no one has yet explained whether we will need another vaccination next winter or whether this vaccination will provide a longer period of protection.
And skiing holidays ?
We have a plan.
I would recommend that all houses have a pulse oximeter and a BP cuff in their medicine cupboard. Both are vital for knowing when a mild illness turns nasty.
However, Perry switched parties in 1989 - a clear sign that the times they were a changing.
Of course Democrat Ann Richards WAS election Governor in 1990. However, her victory was largely due to the fact that her GOP opponent was an idiot, plus her own celebrity following her speech to the 1988 Democratic National Convention ("Poor George [HW Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.") AND she was defeated for re-election in 1994, by George W. Bush no less.
BTW, that was the same year that progressive-populist Democrat Jim Hightower was defeated for election as TX state agricultural commissioner by newly-minted Republican Rick Perry.
Further note that at present, out of more than two dozen Texas statewide elected officials (including justices) all but one are Republican - and THAT office is currently vacant! In fact, think it's been a least twenty years since the Lone State State elected a Democrat to ANY statewide office.
So notion that Texas is really way more Democratic than people think, is something you get from smoking jimson weed out in the noonday sun somewhere between El Paso and Sabine Pass.
ADDENDUM In interests of semi-full disclosure, must point out yours truly was convinced that Democrats would make gains this year in the Lone State State, including flipping a few US House seats AND taking control of the TX sHouse of Reps.
Sadly, did NOT happen.
- The clinical data from the Pfizer vaccine trails showed that 1 dose would provide immunity for more than 50%.
- There are 3.2 million of them
So we should expect a reduction in deaths of 27%+, once 1 dose for all 3.2 million over 80s (or close to) is reached.
If these numbers are correct, we should see in the near future a drop in mortality rate of 6%+ from the over 80s who have received this first dose already.
However I couldn't say the word so I told them he was a "lecherer".
Which was arguably more accurate
Good evening, everyone, and a very happy New Year to you all.
It must be like eating Death Cap Risotto.
This would have effect of reducing inheritance and thereby reducing inequality.
A video call to the GP practise verified that we had good equipment, and that I was using right technique (!!!!) - so they could re-issue the prescription....
The rest of the email is absolutely not "SHOCKING".
When you put this one back into context, what specific part of the context renders it less shocking than the standalone quote?
For context, Trump beat Clinton nationally by 2.1% in 2016 and this time Biden has won by 4.5% so that's a swing of 1.2% to the Democrats so Biden did slightly better than the national swing in Texas.
This year, not enough of them switched to defeat Trumpsky (though they did trim his margin). AND certainly even many who chose Biden at the top of the ticket, stayed with the GOP further down the ballot.
Reminds me of how in WA State back in the the 1980s and 1990s, popular statewide Democrats did pretty well in the affluent Seattle suburbs of East King County. Yet when it came to Congressional and legislative races, Democrats either got stomped OR didn't even bother to run.
Took a few more decades for pro-Dem suburban trend to play itself out, before Republican dominance with these voters MOST of the time was undermined, and finally destroyed.
Dear all,
We hope you had reasonable Christmases. Thank you to those of you who were working, in whatever capacity.
Weekly emails no longer seem sufficient as things are changing so fast. We now have over 90 patients on ACCU across the two floors (6 pods of roughly 15 patient each). The number of people with Covid continues to rise rapidly.
Every hospital in North East London is struggling, some with insufficient oxygen supplies, all with insufficient nursing numbers. Believe it or not, Royal London critical care is coping well relative to some sites. We have often had to help out our neighbours by taking patients they simply do not have capacity to manage. General medical bed numbers (so called ‘G&A beds’) are being increased as well as critical care beds.
Kent is in a similar, if not worse, position. You may have heard on the news that they are sending patients to South West England. The rest of London is probably a couple of weeks behind NEL, but their hospitals too are filling up. NHS London have asked the other sectors to expand capacity in much the same was as we have.
We are currently working on 4E, 4F, 15C, and 15E (both sides). As in the first wave, many nursing staff from a variety of areas have been redeployed to help. ICU nurses from Barts are now a regular feature. We have also been joined by ICU consultants and trainees from Barts.
We will soon by joined by Barts cardiology registrars, to populate a further tier of senior trainees. The anaesthetic department are providing consultants to cover all off-unit calls which would normally be attended by ACCU doctors (trauma calls, code blacks, and cardiac arrests), a consultant to run one of our pods, and will be providing extra airway cover at night (to help with proning/deproning, head turns, managing deteriorations etc.) The comms team is again being boosted in numbers.
There are a few developments we wanted to update you with:
Further expansion. We have always had robust(ish) plans to staff 90 beds, which is where we are now. The new strain and failure of tiers have led to an unexpected increase in numbers however. We are going to have to open more beds. NHS London are authorising 1:3 nursing ratios. We are still gathering together enough staff to do so (both medical and nursing), but the next base of operations to open will be half of 15F.
In the meantime, we are going to squeeze extra beds in to the existing 15th floor wards.
The ACCU consultant rota will change from next week back to what it was in the first wave. There will be a separate admissions consultant, working alongside the 1113 trainee. The consultant on call overnight will be resident.
We will be sending more regular, probably daily, emails to nurses with some simple facts to try to keep you in the loop. Feel free to ignore this, as really important information will come separately, or in our weekly(ish) emails (the ones with pictures and/or poems).
We are also exploring setting up screens in staff rooms to display useful information/encouraging ditties/vaccine updates etc.
We are starting a daily Teams feedback forum in which to raise practical problems, in an attempt to catch these early, and solve the solvable.
[We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the fact we are now in disaster medicine mode. We are no longer providing high standard critical care, because we cannot.] While this is far from ideal, it’s the way things are, and the way they have to be for now.
In terms of how much you do for each patient, discuss this with your nurse in charge and/or the medical team. Some will still need hourly obs, others won’t. Some will still need 4 hourly rolls, but others may be OK with two rolls per shift. This may even change during the shift.
Things are going to get harder before they get better (which they will, eventually). As we get busy, we all tend to reach a limit, in some way or other. Different people will do this in different ways at different times. Bear with them, offer an ear/shoulder (metaphorically of course, while maintaining social distancing!), be understanding. We’ll get through this better by getting through it together.
Best wishes
In any case, those talking about "ramping up" the vaccination programme to deal with a million or more a week should remember there are 3 million over 80s and presumably those who have not yet had their first inoculation will still have it.
Pfizer presumably know their product so their comment seems to be of relevance.
The nearest UK plant would be Deadly Nightshade, which has similar levels of atropine.
I would be seriously in awe of someone who smokes Deadly Nightshade Baccy.
Cockney Covid has come to Scotland and no mistake.
Specifically in the paragraph she edited the sentence. It doesn't say "We are now in disaster mode" it actually says "We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the fact we are now in disaster medicine mode" so she snipped out part of the sentence and falsely capitalised the W of the mid-sentence we to falsely imply that was the start of the sentence. It isn't news that they are in disaster mode, that was previously announced and it is being reiterated.
As the paragraph ends then: "While this is far from ideal, it’s the way things are, and the way they have to be for now."
So she took out the fact it was a reiteration of a previous announcement and that they knew that it is the way things are, and the way they have to be for now - to falsely portray a narrative that it is SHOCKING.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1344716035258261504
Important, heck yes. Critical? Don't agree.
Because even IF Dems flip both of the Peach State seats in US Senate, Uncle Joe will STILL have a monumental task, given the closeness of the numbers, the polarization of the nation AND the continued ravages of COVID, which IMHO will continue through virtually all (if not all) of 2021.
Note that Boris Johnson assures UK that the worst is over, when Joe Biden tells the US the opposite. Which one do YOU believe in more?
Personally, one of the best features re: Biden is his POTENTIAL for being a wheeler-dealer President, thanks to his long and (generally) fruitful senatorial experience.
Haven't PBers lost enough by underestimating Uncle Joe? Sort of the same way Trotskyites lost (even more profoundly) by underestimating the OTHER Uncle Joe??
On several occasions in the last couple of weeks, these views are suddenly hugely increased, even in the majority. Today there are thousands upon thousands of posts quoting conspiracy sites and facebook news, and I think this is starting to come to the surface in the Trump-style "citizen news" of people going around filming what they imagine to be empty wards as part of the conspiracy.
A worrying time.
https://news.sky.com/video/north-korea-celebrates-the-new-year-12176446
We had some growing in the garden but I eventually concluded that cultivating it might be a bad idea.
Would definitely cure Coronavirus though.
If R is higher than some threshold, you are always better off giving as many people as possible a single dose.
The point is to maximize as soon as possible the level of immunity in society. So if Pfizer is 90% effective 12 days after the first shot, and 95% after the 2nd, from a public health perspective, when the pandemic is on the rampage as it currently is, it is better to get more first shots in than to worry about whether delaying a second shot might reduce the increase in effectiveness - even if it renders the second shot of no value.