politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Flying into trouble – the government’s position on Heathrow?

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, and I couldn't give a f**k about your "moral standards" nor would any Tories I know in 2020 be shocked by an unmarried couple getting pregnant and announcing they're engaged and expecting.

Indeed announcing you're engaged and expecting has happened for thousands of years.

There are many 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies who will be utterly appalled.I am not asking anybody to share my opinions on this , though I know that many do - and disproprtionately they are likely to be Tory voters.

I don't believe that or care. They should get their stick out their arse if that's their opinion.

Certainly Tory voters knew they were living together and unmarried before the last election. Didn't seem to upset Tory voters very much so methinks you're projecting.

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, and I couldn't give a f**k about your "moral standards" nor would any Tories I know in 2020 be shocked by an unmarried couple getting pregnant and announcing they're engaged and expecting.

Indeed announcing you're engaged and expecting has happened for thousands of years.

Yes but you are a libertarian not a conservative, Justin to be fair to him is more socially conservative than you are.

That does not mean most Conservatives are anti sex before marriage nowadays but you are more likely to find those who do hold such views in the Conservative Party than elsewhere

The twin set and pearls mob are selecting openly gay candidates as MPs, they'll be fine with an unmarried couple being pregnant.

rottenborough said:

"America is the home of the toughest men and the strongest women to ever walk the earth."

Trump.

Bonkers.

We can grant them the bonkers-est men, though.

Charles said:

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

That’s uncharitable.

It may not be important but you can at least wish them well

Why? I had the chop when I had fathered three children which was one too many in today’s world. If people are interested fair enough but can we relegate it to news at 03:00 and focus on real issues.

matt said:

HYUFD said:

matt said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

Thatcher would, I think, have had a moral flexibility. It’s almost as if she was a normal human being,

Thatcher herself only ever slept with her husband Dennis, if Charles Moore's biography if anything to go by, so she very much embodied traditional conservative values on social matters

Cecil Parkinson. Peter Morrison.

I was not suggesting that she had a keen interest in dogging.

Nah, Cecil was far,far too old for Peter Morrison's tastes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The twin set and pearls mob are selecting openly gay candidates as MPs, they'll be fine with an unmarried couple being pregnant.

Women get pregnant, not couples.

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

TheScreamingEagles said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

As an aside, irrespective of the pregnancy, who was the last Prime Minister to get married while in office?

Lord Liverpool in 1822.

He was only 42 when he became PM and was so for nearly 15 years from 1812 to 1827.

Blair was 44 when he became PM in 1997. Boris Johnson was 45 when he became PM last July.

Liverpool served three years longer than Margaret Thatcher but lagged six years behind Walpole.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, and I couldn't give a f**k about your "moral standards" nor would any Tories I know in 2020 be shocked by an unmarried couple getting pregnant and announcing they're engaged and expecting.

Indeed announcing you're engaged and expecting has happened for thousands of years.

Yes but you are a libertarian not a conservative, Justin to be fair to him is more socially conservative than you are.

That does not mean most Conservatives are anti sex before marriage nowadays but you are more likely to find those who do hold such views in the Conservative Party than elsewhere

You say that like it means anything. The Conservatives ceased to be a draconian socially conservative party long, long before I was born and has become less and less socially conservative throughout my life.

Anti sex before marriage would be a teensy tiny insignificant minority of Conservatives not the norm.

So pending Supreme Court decision Heathrow expansion is dead, but the government needs to be careful in that while it will be very happy about the excuse not to go ahead with Heathrow, the same reasoning could affect things it does want to achieve?

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

Stop digging on this one. A secondary infection is deemed part of the illness for stats perspectives

There is no digging to do, it is a statement of fact, pneumonia is not coronivarus. The death certificate would state the patient died of pneumonia not coronavirus

By definition a secondary infection is a result of the primary infection. I’d expect the certificate to state complications of coronavirus in any event. It would be deemed a comorbidity

Most coronavirus patients do not get pneumonia, hence do not need hospital treatment for it

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1233868325475758083

matt said:

Mexicanpete said:

matt said:

HYUFD said:

matt said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

Thatcher would, I think, have had a moral flexibility. It’s almost as if she was a normal human being,

Thatcher herself only ever slept with her husband Dennis, if Charles Moore's biography if anything to go by, so she very much embodied traditional conservative values on social matters

Cecil Parkinson. Peter Morrison.

I was not suggesting that she had a keen interest in dogging.

Nah, Cecil was far,far too old for Peter Morrison's tastes.

You deserve a “heh” for that.

I thank you!

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1233868325475758083

And anyway, who would they pick on those grounds ... ?

NYT:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Democratic Party officials predicted heavy turnout during Saturday’s primary, possibly reaching the 500,000 people who voted in 2008 when Barack Obama’s popularity drove the state’s black voters to polls in record numbers.

Speaking at a news conference here eight hours after the polls opened, Trav Robertson, the chairman of the state party, said that nearly 80,000 voters had filed absentee ballots, a significant increase from the last two elections, indicating strong participation.

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

If you want an analogy, my grandfather was terribly disappointed that he’d retired from Cunard in 1981. He wanted to be sailing to a war zone and begged Cunard to let him contribute.

Perhaps medical staff today are more interested in their pensions but is there evidence for that?

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, and I couldn't give a f**k about your "moral standards" nor would any Tories I know in 2020 be shocked by an unmarried couple getting pregnant and announcing they're engaged and expecting.

Indeed announcing you're engaged and expecting has happened for thousands of years.

Yes but you are a libertarian not a conservative, Justin to be fair to him is more socially conservative than you are.

That does not mean most Conservatives are anti sex before marriage nowadays but you are more likely to find those who do hold such views in the Conservative Party than elsewhere

You say that like it means anything. The Conservatives ceased to be a draconian socially conservative party long, long before I was born and has become less and less socially conservative throughout my life.

Anti sex before marriage would be a teensy tiny insignificant minority of Conservatives not the norm.

It may not be the norm but it was the Whig government of Palmerston which introduced secular divorce, the Labour government of Harold Wilson which legalised abortion and decriminalised homosexuality, most Conservative MPs even voted against gay marriage with Labour and LD MPs needed to pass it.

The Conservative Party has always been the more socially conservative party even if it has accepted change and evolving values once they have come in and sex before marriage is no exception

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

Good party political awareness. Save the Tory voting over 60s and compromise the Labour voting students!

matt said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

If you want an analogy, my grandfather was terribly disappointed that he’d retired from Cunard in 1981. He wanted to be sailing to a war zone and begged Cunard to let him contribute.

Perhaps medical staff today are more interested in their pensions but is there evidence for that?

My dad was navigating officer on QM1 when it went to Long Beach maybe tgeyknew each over?
C

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No it wouldn't. Death certificates can name and do multiple proximate causes.

I know someone who was distraught when her sister's death certificate said the death was caused by something along the lines of 'alcohol induced liver failure'. She was very upset alcohol was mentioned on the death certificate and wanted the certificate to just say "liver failure".

If someone dies from coronavirus here because they get pneumonia due to coronavirus then they absolutely may have coronavirus listed on the death certificate and it certainly counts as a coronavirus fatality.

Yet the coronavirus alone would not cause it, that is the point, hence hospital treatment is ineffective for most coronavirus patients, it is only of use to treat a secondary illnees

Coronavirus would have caused it. Whether its alone or not is irrelevant, it would be the direct cause and listed as a cause.

Hospital treatment is required for many coronavirus patients. Nobody claimed that all coronavirus patients need hospital treatment or will die. You did claim "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is total BS since recovery requires recovering from any complications it brings.

No, as again the hospital treatment is not required to recover from coronavirus and certainly not for the vast majority of younger people.

It may be required for elderly people in terms of secondary illnesses like pneumonia but again it is those being treated not coronavirus itself

Hospital treatment is often not required to recover from coronavirus, it sometimes is.

Secondary illnesses are part of the primary illness. Treating the secondary illness is indeed part of treating the coronavirus itself.

@rcs What is your feel on the ground in the US for how people are considering the virus threat?

My travels elsewhere on the internet suggest anyone raising even mildest alarm is being treated with outright derision by American posters. The stock market correction is seen as “stupid people panicking, don’t worry we just hit the bottom folks”.

There seems to be almost complete unawareness of the extraordinary economic self harm committed not just in China but elsewhere in Asia to step the tide.

Lots of “this virus is very non lethal, it’s a joke it’s even in the news”. But without any thought of what sudden hospitalisation of a very large number of people means.

I was guilty of complacency in the face of Eadric’s warnings because it looked like Asia had got it under control, there would be some economic pain, but that such steps would not be necessary outside Asia. Clearly that’s changed. But the US at large doesn’t seem to have got the message yet.

moonshine said:

@rcs What is your feel on the ground in the US for how people are considering the virus threat?

My travels elsewhere on the internet suggest anyone raising even mildest alarm is being treated with outright derision by American posters. The stock market correction is seen as “stupid people panicking, don’t worry we just hit the bottom folks”.

There seems to be almost complete unawareness of the extraordinary economic self harm committed not just in China but elsewhere in Asia to step the tide.

Lots of “this virus is very non lethal, it’s a joke it’s even in the news”. But without any thought of what sudden hospitalisation of a very large number of people means.

I was guilty of complacency in the face of Eadric’s warnings because it looked like Asia had got it under control, there would be some economic pain, but that such steps would not be necessary outside Asia. Clearly that’s changed. But the US at large doesn’t seem to have got the message yet.

Trump's reality TV, through-the-looking-glass world is about to be hit by brute reality.

One can almost feel sorry for the lost of the American heartlands who are going to find their saviour is yet another snake oil seller.

nichomar said:

matt said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

If you want an analogy, my grandfather was terribly disappointed that he’d retired from Cunard in 1981. He wanted to be sailing to a war zone and begged Cunard to let him contribute.

Perhaps medical staff today are more interested in their pensions but is there evidence for that?

My dad was navigating officer on QM1 when it went to Long Beach maybe tgeyknew each over?
C

Possibly, Cunard was a a small company. Depends on his interest in Cunard’s global fleet electric eng.As a navigator, that interest’s unlikely,

Oddly I met a US veteran at Pima who went across the Atlantic (as part of the USAAF) when he was on the QE in 1944. It’s always small world.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

By definition a secondary infection is a result of the primary infection. I’d expect the certificate to state complications of coronavirus in any event. It would be deemed a comorbidity

Most coronavirus patients do not get pneumonia, hence do not need hospital treatment for it

Most isn't good enough for your ludicrous claims. Most is not all.

Most coronavirus patients don't, but many do.

Most coronavirus patients don't die, but some do.

Your logic is as bullshit as claiming "because most coronavirus patients don't die, coronavirus doesn't cause death."

Most don't and even the few who do are not being treated for coronavirus itself but the likes of pneumonia

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No it wouldn't. Death certificates can name and do multiple proximate causes.

I know someone who was distraught when her sister's death certificate said the death was caused by something along the lines of 'alcohol induced liver failure'. She was very upset alcohol was mentioned on the death certificate and wanted the certificate to just say "liver failure".

If someone dies from coronavirus here because they get pneumonia due to coronavirus then they absolutely may have coronavirus listed on the death certificate and it certainly counts as a coronavirus fatality.

Yet the coronavirus alone would not cause it, that is the point, hence hospital treatment is ineffective for most coronavirus patients, it is only of use to treat a secondary illnees

Coronavirus would have caused it. Whether its alone or not is irrelevant, it would be the direct cause and listed as a cause.

Hospital treatment is required for many coronavirus patients. Nobody claimed that all coronavirus patients need hospital treatment or will die. You did claim "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is total BS since recovery requires recovering from any complications it brings.

No, as again the hospital treatment is not required to recover from coronavirus and certainly not for the vast majority of younger people.

It may be required for elderly people in terms of secondary illnesses like pneumonia but again it is those being treated not coronavirus itself

Hospital treatment is often not required to recover from coronavirus, it sometimes is.

Secondary illnesses are part of the primary illness. Treating the secondary illness is indeed part of treating the coronavirus itself.

You cannot treat or cure coronavirus, just wait for it to move on, you can only treat some of the secondary symptoms which emerge in a small minority of cases

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

Stop digging on this one. A secondary infection is deemed part of the illness for stats perspectives

There is no digging to do, it is a statement of fact, pneumonia is not coronivarus. The death certificate would state the patient died of pneumonia not coronavirus

By definition a secondary infection is a result of the primary infection. I’d expect the certificate to state complications of coronavirus in any event. It would be deemed a comorbidity

Most coronavirus patients do not get pneumonia, hence do not need hospital treatment for it

A statement which, while true, is completely totally and spectacularly irrelevant

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No it wouldn't. Death certificates can name and do multiple proximate causes.

I know someone who was distraught when her sister's death certificate said the death was caused by something along the lines of 'alcohol induced liver failure'. She was very upset alcohol was mentioned on the death certificate and wanted the certificate to just say "liver failure".

If someone dies from coronavirus here because they get pneumonia due to coronavirus then they absolutely may have coronavirus listed on the death certificate and it certainly counts as a coronavirus fatality.

Yet the coronavirus alone would not cause it, that is the point, hence hospital treatment is ineffective for most coronavirus patients, it is only of use to treat a secondary illnees

Coronavirus would have caused it. Whether its alone or not is irrelevant, it would be the direct cause and listed as a cause.

Hospital treatment is required for many coronavirus patients. Nobody claimed that all coronavirus patients need hospital treatment or will die. You did claim "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is total BS since recovery requires recovering from any complications it brings.

No, as again the hospital treatment is not required to recover from coronavirus and certainly not for the vast majority of younger people.

It may be required for elderly people in terms of secondary illnesses like pneumonia but again it is those being treated not coronavirus itself

Hospital treatment is often not required to recover from coronavirus, it sometimes is.

Secondary illnesses are part of the primary illness. Treating the secondary illness is indeed part of treating the coronavirus itself.

You cannot treat or cure coronavirus, just wait for it to move on, you can only treat some of the secondary symptoms which emerge in a small minority of cases

Treating secondary conditions is part of treating the primary condition for those who require that. If you die from secondary infections your immune system is incapable of fighting off the primary infection!

And that's my last word on this subject. You're right @rcs1000 this is banging my head against the wall.

eadric said:

Also incredible

Venice, deserted

https://twitter.com/LucaZane10/status/1233881260235403266?s=20

If you are indeed not SeanT., could you by chance be The Grim Reaper?

1) “Exit Sir Calamity”
2) Coronavirus ad from govt

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1233878439469486080?s=20

matt said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

If you want an analogy, my grandfather was terribly disappointed that he’d retired from Cunard in 1981. He wanted to be sailing to a war zone and begged Cunard to let him contribute.

Perhaps medical staff today are more interested in their pensions but is there evidence for that?

I would guess that there is potential for further burdening the system by directly exposing the most vulnerable age groups to the highest risk. They might want to do their bit but there are reasons why people are retired out of front line positions.

Mexicanpete said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

Good party political awareness. Save the Tory voting over 60s and compromise the Labour voting students!

If we are calling in the retirees, I think the asset owning generations will already be bearing the brunt of it...

TheScreamingEagles said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So much for my father's quiet retirement, I wonder if he'll end up working alongside HYUFD?

NHS plans to deploy ‘Dad’s Army’ of retired doctors if Covid-19 spreads.

Government pandemic preparation plans to include ‘war room’ of experts

Former health professionals could be brought out of retirement under emergency plans being considered by the government to combat the spread of coronavirus.

News of the potential “Dad’s army” deployment comes as NHS bosses warn that the service will struggle if Covid-19 takes hold in Britain.

Yesterday a further three people in England tested positive for the virus, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 23. Two of the patients had recently travelled back from Italy, while the other had returned from Asia, according to the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty.

The three cases – in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire – are being investigated, and any individuals who had contact with them are being traced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/nhs-dads-army-plan-for-coronavirus-spread-pandemic-strategy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well putting more 60+'s in the firing line may reduce the pension budget. If I was a retired medic I'd be self isolating in the Dales not risking a 7-14% mortality rate...

Would the medical schools be a better source?

Selfishly I was thinking about the utilisation of medical students as well.

Would you need lots of technical competence in the lower risk wards? Or could you get away with warm-ish bodies?

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

@rcs What is your feel on the ground in the US for how people are considering the virus threat?

My travels elsewhere on the internet suggest anyone raising even mildest alarm is being treated with outright derision by American posters. The stock market correction is seen as “stupid people panicking, don’t worry we just hit the bottom folks”.

There seems to be almost complete unawareness of the extraordinary economic self harm committed not just in China but elsewhere in Asia to step the tide.

Lots of “this virus is very non lethal, it’s a joke it’s even in the news”. But without any thought of what sudden hospitalisation of a very large number of people means.

I was guilty of complacency in the face of Eadric’s warnings because it looked like Asia had got it under control, there would be some economic pain, but that such steps would not be necessary outside Asia. Clearly that’s changed. But the US at large doesn’t seem to have got the message yet.

Trump's reality TV, through-the-looking-glass world is about to be hit by brute reality.

One can almost feel sorry for the lost of the American heartlands who are going to find their saviour is yet another snake oil seller.

The first death on American soil will be pivotal. Expect some panic to spread from the NYC markets (where it clearly kicked in, last Monday) to Americans at large

I hope MalcolmG has a steady nerve, because this bear market is going to be looooooooong

Will it ?
We'll see soon enough:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51692577

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No it wouldn't. Death certificates can name and do multiple proximate causes.

I know someone who was distraught when her sister's death certificate said the death was caused by something along the lines of 'alcohol induced liver failure'. She was very upset alcohol was mentioned on the death certificate and wanted the certificate to just say "liver failure".

If someone dies from coronavirus here because they get pneumonia due to coronavirus then they absolutely may have coronavirus listed on the death certificate and it certainly counts as a coronavirus fatality.

Yet the coronavirus alone would not cause it, that is the point, hence hospital treatment is ineffective for most coronavirus patients, it is only of use to treat a secondary illnees

Coronavirus would have caused it. Whether its alone or not is irrelevant, it would be the direct cause and listed as a cause.

Hospital treatment is required for many coronavirus patients. Nobody claimed that all coronavirus patients need hospital treatment or will die. You did claim "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is total BS since recovery requires recovering from any complications it brings.

No, as again the hospital treatment is not required to recover from coronavirus and certainly not for the vast majority of younger people.

It may be required for elderly people in terms of secondary illnesses like pneumonia but again it is those being treated not coronavirus itself

Hospital treatment is often not required to recover from coronavirus, it sometimes is.

Secondary illnesses are part of the primary illness. Treating the secondary illness is indeed part of treating the coronavirus itself.

You cannot treat or cure coronavirus, just wait for it to move on, you can only treat some of the secondary symptoms which emerge in a small minority of cases

Treating secondary conditions is part of treating the primary condition for those who require that. If you die from secondary infections your immune system is incapable of fighting off the primary infection!

And that's my last word on this subject. You're right @rcs1000 this is banging my head against the wall.

Yes but it is still the secondary infection you die of, not the primary infection

On that basis, of course, AIDS killed basically no one.

Can Boris actually marry again? I thought he was still married to his ex? If he is now properly free, I wonder if they'll do it before the baby arrives. If so, I imagine they'll want to get it done before there's a big bump.

CarlottaVance said:

Background to low rate of testing in US:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/29/new-fda-policy-will-expand-coronavirus-testing/?outputType=comment

Either the US has been uniquely lucky, or we should see a jump in diagnosing of Covid-19.

The US have their head in the sand.

The first American fatality from this in Kirkland, Washington has been described as someone who hadn't travelled and hadn't been in contact with anyone who was known to have the illness.

In other words they don't have a clue who has the illness and who hasn't and aren't tracing it! This is going to be an unnecessarily massive epidemic in America because they aren't doing the basics. Idiots!

And they're putting us at more risk too. Can't be long before this is more of an American disease than a Chinese one if they don't pull their finger out.