Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

601 - 620 of 4281 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
The delay in lockdown made it worse for the NHS!
And an immediate lockdown would have made it worse too.

Everything makes it worse for the NHS. Less money, more money, less doctors, more doctors, less managers, more managers, less patients, more patients. There's no pleasing the NHS. Reminds me of my wife.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
It's a great argument in principle, but falls down in reality simply because many under-50s live or work with over-50s, and a significant proportion of key workers are over 50.

So what you propose is not possible. Which is why no govt in the world is trying to implement that.

Hypothetical solutions are useful analytical tools, but no more.
I don't follow.

If you are over 50 and/or have a health issue, stay at home, stay isolated.

If that doesn't work, then why is anyone doing it, let alone everyone?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
Isn't this basically what we are doing now? Almost everyone will connect into this isolation group in some way.
Why? If 50's + sick are at home, why would people go visit them?

At the moment, there are still delivery drivers and work people coming and going in houses, acting as transmission vectors.

Delivery drivers and workers should be bifurcated; some are assigned to work with under 50s and others over. The ones working with the over 50s remain isolated and don't go out with their mates in the evening, so they earn a bit more money to stay at home. They don't mix. Simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
And an immediate lockdown would have made it worse too.

Everything makes it worse for the NHS. Less money, more money, less doctors, more doctors, less managers, more managers, less patients, more patients. There's no pleasing the NHS. Reminds me of my wife.
an immediate lockdown would’ve massively reduced the peak and made it much better for the NHS in the short term - if you mean it would’ve increased the risk of a second peak then yes it would, but that’s why you go into lockdown and then phase out of it with measures in place like testing in groups - and go back into lockdown if the cases increase expontially again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
If you are over 50 and/or have a health issue, stay at home, stay isolated.
Any kind of health issue? Premature baldness?

Unfortunately there has been no evidence on which health issues to worry about, unless you are one of the 1.5 million with serious illnesses who are being "shielded" by a well-intentioned letter from the Health Sec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Why? If 50's + sick are at home, why would people go visit them?

At the moment, there are still delivery drivers and work people coming and going in houses, acting as transmission vectors.

Delivery drivers and workers should be bifurcated; some are assigned to work with under 50s and others over. The ones working with the over 50s remain isolated and don't go out with their mates in the evening, so they earn a bit more money to stay at home. They don't mix. Simple.
Let's try another way. About a third of the workforce is over 50. Every business and public service would fall apart with a random one-third loss of staff. It would be even more paralyzing than the current situation.

I think you know all this really....but you do love a good wind-up don't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
an immediate lockdown would’ve massively reduced the peak and made it much better for the NHS in the short term - if you mean it would’ve increased the risk of a second peak then yes it would, but that’s why you go into lockdown and then phase out of it with measures in place like testing in groups - and go back into lockdown if the cases increase expontially again
you are confusing reducing the peak vs moving the peak

JJ
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
an immediate lockdown would’ve massively reduced the peak and made it much better for the NHS in the short term
I completely agree that it would have reduced the current levels of demand on the NHS ... but they aren't in crisis at the moment, just 'busy'.

Now that the peak has bunched up and has become synchronised with being locked up at home, the peak may well become more pronounced once everyone is released.

- if you mean it would’ve increased the risk of a second peak then yes it would, but that’s why you go into lockdown and then phase out of it with measures in place like testing in groups - and go back into lockdown if the cases increase expontially again
Well, let me say this; one of my hats is as an RF engineer, and I know how a klystron works. If we create alternating peaks and alternating lock-downs, we end up with this situation;-

Watch from 1'40'' if this sort of thing doesn't grab you, but within 30 seconds you'll understand what I mean.
Each time we have a lock down, we get a cycle in the first resonator. The NHS is the second resonator. Sick people are the electrons. You can get them steady, or bunch them up. What we might be doing at the moment is simply bunching them up.

 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
Any kind of health issue? Premature baldness?

Unfortunately there has been no evidence on which health issues to worry about, unless you are one of the 1.5 million with serious illnesses who are being "shielded" by a well-intentioned letter from the Health Sec.
Statistics will disclose that.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
Let's try another way. About a third of the workforce is over 50. Every business and public service would fall apart with a random one-third loss of staff. It would be even more paralyzing than the current situation.

I think you know all this really....but you do love a good wind-up don't you?
I recognise the problems and the situation may be terminated due to issues, or sickness and a decontamination requirement, at a site.

But I don't see that as a reason to assume it is going to happen until it has happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
Well, let me say this; one of my hats is as an RF engineer, and I know how a klystron works. If we create alternating peaks and alternating lock-downs, we end up with this situation;- Watch from 1'40'' if this sort of thing doesn't grab you, but within 30 seconds you'll understand what I mean.
That video just reminded me of this one where Prof Stanley Unwin explains atomic power. Equally confusing.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
I completely agree that it would have reduced the current levels of demand on the NHS ... but they aren't in crisis at the moment, just 'busy'.
And thats the issue - once you catch the virus it takes two weeks for the symptoms to appear - the moment lockdown happened that means two weeks from that date there will be a peak in people developing symptoms, and the NHS is already busy

every day the lockdown was delayed the further the virus spread, and even in the sub 60 age group there’s a low percentage of people who get sick enough to need a ventilator whixh is hundreds of thousands and if the ICU is full there’s a high chance they will die(as well as any non-virus related ICU need) and then you add that number to to >1% in each age group who dies (still a total of hundreds of thousands)

lockdown for everyone was the only way currently to stop the spread of the virus long enough to develop enough testing to track and trace the virus and move to less extreme measures - it’s basically buying time as the government wasted a lot with the wrong strategy despite advice from other countries (even ridiculing them by saying the UK was following science) and, I believe, the WHO
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,336 Posts
And thats the issue - once you catch the virus it takes two weeks for the symptoms to appear - the moment lockdown happened that means two weeks from that date there will be a peak in people developing symptoms, and the NHS is already busy

every day the lockdown was delayed the further the virus spread, and even in the sub 60 age group there’s a low percentage of people who get sick enough to need a ventilator whixh is hundreds of thousands and if the ICU is full there’s a high chance they will die(as well as any non-virus related ICU need) and then you add that number to to >1% in each age group who dies (still a total of hundreds of thousands)

lockdown for everyone was the only way currently to stop the spread of the virus long enough to develop enough testing to track and trace the virus and move to less extreme measures - it’s basically buying time as the government wasted a lot with the wrong strategy despite advice from other countries (even ridiculing them by saying the UK was following science) and, I believe, the WHO
OK, well, I agree that I can see a logic there. If at the moment of the lock down the prediction was over running the NHS capacity in 2 weeks time, then, yes, OK, I concede the point. But we have to be careful how we play that card. I don't want to see enough data that I really could plot the impedance of the pandemic on a Smith Chart!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
And thats the issue - once you catch the virus it takes two weeks for the symptoms to appear
I thought the latest ideas on that were that incubation is anywhere between 1 and 5 days - 2 weeks see most people either dead, or on the way to recovery (from that chinese WHO report I kept linking too)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I thought the latest ideas on that were that incubation is anywhere between 1 and 5 days - 2 weeks see most people either dead, or on the way to recovery (from that chinese WHO report I kept linking too)
Yes. 2 weeks is incorrect. Outlying stats.

It would really help if the person (Thomas Carter) that posted stuff like this wouldn't spread misinformation. If you are going to state something as if it is fact be sure you have your sources.
 
601 - 620 of 4281 Posts
Top