Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

41 - 60 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
What is the value of going to hospital?

I have asked this before and people are too chicken scared to even look for the answer.

What is the difference in survival rates between those that are admitted to hospital when they get to a certain level of critical condition, and those that are not if they reach the same level of critical condition?

I mean, we should have that data because other countries are not so helpful towards their sick populations, right? Ergo, other countries will have a higher death rate ....

If it makes no difference to survival rates if a covid victim goes to hospital or not, then don't admit them.

My question; what difference does it make?
Your premise is wrong. The point in hospitalising people is that many can be treated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
My question; what difference does it make?
The difference is that the government and health services are seen to be 'doing something'.

The end result for the patient is in a sense immaterial because the public and the media expect and demand that 'something is done'. The PR fallout from being seen to not act would be catastrophic.

Boris got perilously close to that result with his 'herd-immunity' strategy (if that is what it was).
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
Your premise is wrong. The point in hospitalising people is that many can be treated.
A friend of ours is one of the 1.8 million who were sent a letter by the government to take extra special precautions and he has locked himself away and apart from boredom has the same attitude as me, where's the hardship.
I don't know how many retired people there are in the UK who are of sound mind and body who would have accepted they were potentially higher risk but had they been given a clearer message would have obeyed it. Instead by putting restrictions across the board it has given all to think they share the same level of of risk. All this R stuff about spreading the virus is not what puts fear in people, it is the thought of being ill themselves.
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous general restrictions on all seems. And I am not paid to think.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
Your premise is wrong. The point in hospitalising people is that many can be treated.
To what level of efficacy.

Millions are spent to determine the efficacy of treatments and drugs.

I am asking what is the efficacy of a covid patient going to hospital.

Without knowing that one has no idea how many lives going to hospital has 'saved'.

If you go to hospital because you have lost your arm to a shredding machine, what are the chances of the hospital curing your missing arm and replacing it?

Hospitals are not magic places filled with pixies and faries.

How many with covid would have died had they not gone, and how many that have gone would have recovered naturally by themselves?

It is an essential requirement to know the efficacy of a treatment before one can state its efficacy. It is tautological and indisputable.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
Examining why we made the wrong call is not important but shifting from negative to positive, lockdown back to normality is.
So what next?
Would a detailed admission of how we got it wrong help? And it has got to be understood that the "we" really is all of us. We can't all expect to claim compensation for a mistake that the vast majority embraced.
Side note. Interesting youtube video from TED Why the majority is always wrong. worth looking at.
Anyway there has to be a firm resolve to move on. Get back to work. Open the schools. Open the leisure facilities.
Banish the fears. Throw away the face masks.
And do what I do at this time of the year. I look out the window and know that must get out there because it is such a lovely day.
 

·
Registered
2017 Golf GTE
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Cooo! There's a brave chap!

I know exactly how you feel about wanting to get out as usual but I believe the stuff about the elderly being most vulnerable. So I will be cowering in my lair until the all clear sounds.

I have my fingers crossed for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
I wonder how many people caught covid from going / being in hospital when they perhaps wouldn't have outside. I know I read somewhere about the ebola outbreak that doctors/nurses were the prime spreaders - thru not washing their hands properly. Not saying that that is what happened here, but it does make you wonder. Also, hasn't there been data to show that actually the rate of mortality amongst NHS/care workers is no different to that in the general population. There are so many unanswered questions, and yet so much data that the "scientists" are using but won't let the rest of us in on.

oh yeah, and what about Cummins then; yet another rule giver but not taker !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,935 Posts
I wonder how many people caught covid from going / being in hospital when they perhaps wouldn't have outside. I know I read somewhere about the ebola outbreak that doctors/nurses were the prime spreaders - thru not washing their hands properly. Not saying that that is what happened here, but it does make you wonder. Also, hasn't there been data to show that actually the rate of mortality amongst NHS/care workers is no different to that in the general population. There are so many unanswered questions, and yet so much data that the "scientists" are using but won't let the rest of us in on.

oh yeah, and what about Cummins then; yet another rule giver but not taker !!!
I recall the mortality rate in front line workers was less than the general population. About half the rate.
Accepted theses will generally be a more healthy group rather than all and sundry but then also offset by the lack of children in the sector.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
I wonder how many people caught covid from going / being in hospital when they perhaps wouldn't have outside. I know I read somewhere about the ebola outbreak that doctors/nurses were the prime spreaders - thru not washing their hands properly. Not saying that that is what happened here, but it does make you wonder. Also, hasn't there been data to show that actually the rate of mortality amongst NHS/care workers is no different to that in the general population. There are so many unanswered questions, and yet so much data that the "scientists" are using but won't let the rest of us in on.

oh yeah, and what about Cummins then; yet another rule giver but not taker !!!
Well, that is exactly what has happened, the NHS used old people to spread the disease around care homes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
  1. A friend of ours is one of the 1.8 million who were sent a letter by the government to take extra special precautions and he has locked himself away and apart from boredom has the same attitude as me, where's the hardship.
    I don't know how many retired people there are in the UK who are of sound mind and body who would have accepted they were potentially higher risk but had they been given a clearer message would have obeyed it. Instead by putting restrictions across the board it has given all to think they share the same level of of risk. All this R stuff about spreading the virus is not what puts fear in people, it is the thought of being ill themselves.
    The more I think about it, the more ridiculous general restrictions on all seems. And I am not paid to think.
Deluded on so any levels. Also displays an incredibly selfish attitude.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
Deluded on so any levels. Also displays an incredibly selfish attitude.
Which levels, and why selfish? Looks reasonable to me.

It's pointless just disgorging an opinion from the recesses of your clouded thoughts without being specific and justifying them.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Deluded on so any levels. Also displays an incredibly selfish attitude.
Delution by the masses is a very common human trait but how you think my friend and I are deluded on any level or are incredibly selfish needs some explaining please because clearly what I have actually said in that and earlier posts you have interpreted to mean something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
OK, I have family members involved in both health and education... across a lot of settings.

I have elderly relatives. I have young adult children who careers and education are affected. I have very young relatives who contrary to populist opinion are not immune to the affects of COVID. For myself Covid makes earning my living much harder.

So I clap on Thursdays. Hope you do to. Give us a post of how that simple act provides some solidarity with your fellow citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
I am asking what is the efficacy of a covid patient going to hospital.
It's the wrong question. The real question is: where is the best place for someone who is seriously ill?

I'm sure that the first batch of patients would have received simple care to support them as they either got better or died. As they have moved forwards the care has improved (doctors have said in interviews that they were learning a lot and that they were improving the care over time). Doctors have been trying all sorts of treatments to see what works best - proper trials will take time.

We are now seeing targetted drugs being trialled as real treatments for covid19. The benefits of hospitalisation will be compounding with time and the treatments will be refined over time. Eventually, over a period of time, we will see real results from the treatments being offered that will benefit those who are hospitalised in the future, but you have to start somewhere.

This data will emerge over time and will be difficult to interpret - it may well be that those who have become seriously ill in the early stages had some type of susceptibility that has now diminished in the remaining population. It has certainly happened before in previous 'flu outbreaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
To what level of efficacy.

Millions are spent to determine the efficacy of treatments and drugs.

I am asking what is the efficacy of a covid patient going to hospital.

Without knowing that one has no idea how many lives going to hospital has 'saved'.

If you go to hospital because you have lost your arm to a shredding machine, what are the chances of the hospital curing your missing arm and replacing it?

Hospitals are not magic places filled with pixies and faries.

How many with covid would have died had they not gone, and how many that have gone would have recovered naturally by themselves?

It is an essential requirement to know the efficacy of a treatment before one can state its efficacy. It is tautological and indisputable.
Respiratory failure is pretty serious. You chances of fighting off an infection are significantly better if you didn’t die of respiratory failure before your immune system fights off the virus.

Comparing Covid patients who are not hospitalised with those who are makes no sense. It’s not like for like. It’s comparing people who are less ill with those who are more ill.
If you’re looking for numbers however imperial college published their estimates for hospitalisation and death rates.
Those requiring critical care rises to 5% for 40-49 year olds, 12% for those in their 50s, 27% for those in their 60s. 43% in 70s.
It’s those numbers that mean infection rates have to be kept down.
Without managing infection rates up to 20% of the population might have been infected at the peak.
 

·
Registered
ZOE GT Line R135 Z.E. 50 Rapid Charge, Mar '20
Joined
·
106 Posts
This is going to be the new Y2K.

Those not involved are going to insist it was never as bad as it was made out to be and those who actually worked on it are going to wonder why so many people are so stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
Hold on a sec - I was a computer "expert" at that time, and I, rather than like most of my peers, made no money because I told my customers not to worry about it - I was right, the world didn't end - so basically I thought most people were stupid for believing the hype, and I also know that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be !!
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
Respiratory failure is pretty serious. You chances of fighting off an infection are significantly better if you didn’t die of respiratory failure before your immune system fights off the virus.

Comparing Covid patients who are not hospitalised with those who are makes no sense. It’s not like for like. It’s comparing people who are less ill with those who are more ill.
If you’re looking for numbers however imperial college published their estimates for hospitalisation and death rates.
Those requiring critical care rises to 5% for 40-49 year olds, 12% for those in their 50s, 27% for those in their 60s. 43% in 70s.
It’s those numbers that mean infection rates have to be kept down.
Without managing infection rates up to 20% of the population might have been infected at the peak.
Still missing the point.

Of those 'requiring' hospitalisation, if they don't go do they all die?

Or another way, of those assessed as 'requiring critical care' (else they would die, else it'd not be 'required'), how many were over-cautiously assessed and didn't 'need' that critical care?

Really, I don't see what the NHS-lovers are saying. Look, let's say you have a drug and it's found to help one person. Great, it has worked for 'one' patient on 'one' occasion.

Do you then buy that drug for everyone with that condition, and at any cost?

No, of course not. What you do is you see how effective it is first, before you can decide whether it is worthwhile. Let's say the drug is for a headache and costs £2000 per treatment. Some people die of headaches because they are actually strokes and this pill stops that from happening, hence that one person was saved.

So, we have 'a condition' and 'a treatment' and now we want to know if the treatment is worth the cost and effort. We discover that 999,999 out of one million people-headaches get better from a headache without any help or drugs at all. We discover that 1 in one million is saved by this drug.

Say there are 200 million people-headaches a year, (say 6 headaches a year for 50% of the population of 66M), and at £2000 per treatment that'd be £400 billion/yr, saving 33 people.

Do we give this drug to everyone with a headache? If not, why not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
well if you want the definition of stupid, why are there still hydrocloroxyquin (!) trials going on here, and yet now the "lancet" has said its lethal
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
It's the wrong question. The real question is: where is the best place for someone who is seriously ill?
Well, that's a really easy one;
  • if they are going to die, then at home
  • if there is an effective treatment, then at the point of that effective treatment
Again, the question is where is the effective treatment? To know that, you have to be able to assess the efficacy of the treatment.

It's all tautological.
 
41 - 60 of 171 Posts
Top