So studies show that Omicron appears to result in a 70% reduction in hospitalisations

I wondered if Loko meant all restrictions, right from the very beginning. It’s too ambiguous to know, I think.

 

That 3 in 10 can't be ignored. Someone made a very valid point this morning that "The virus can also exacerbate existing health problems and later become the primary reason they remain in hospital". Those patients also have to be cared for differently.

 

Fair enough, suppose Loko will have to let us know.

 

Still surprised they want to countenance normal New Year festivities. I mean, what do they think will happen?

 

It's a poser, isn't it.

 

A very cunning poster is our Loko. Always leaves himself wriggle room with an ambiguous comment here and a question mark there.

 

So 183,000 infections reported yesterday, anecdotal evidence that NHS staff are having to isolate in considerable numbers, LFT tests have run out. Yet we should party on? That seems to me to be a political decision based on the PM's weakness, not a decision made in the interests of public health (even if only as a precautionary measure).

 

Absolutely, my Auntie was in hospital with final stage cancer. She caught Covid in there… recovered from Covid a week or so later. Died from cancer 6 weeks later. And then included in Covid death stats…

 

I'm not really talking about lockdowns Loko, because I agree there are one or two signs that seem a little more hopeful. But at this stage I doubt the wisdom of allowing large New Year gatherings to take place. Even non-ICU admissions are taking up hospital beds.

 

Sorry for your loss…
But if she died from cancer 6 weeks after recovering from Covid she’s not included in the ‘within 28 days of a positive test’ statistics.

I’m sure everyone is aware of the concept of targets driving perverse behaviour; here’s a situation to ponder.

Look at this from the perspective of the local health authority. They’re actually held accountable for controlling spread of this virus (despite having very little control). So they’re held to account for rising death rates.

Do you think they want to inflate the reported figures (as many on here constantly suggest), or does it actually make more sense to assume they’ll do whatever is possible locally to keep both reported cases and death statistics as low as possible?

I know anecdotally that a local trust was treating covid patients last year after a diagnosis by x ray rather than ‘testing’ because it was faster at the time but conveniently also kept the stats low. And now I’m hearing that patients in ICU might be kept ‘alive’ a couple of extra days in order to get past the 28 days notification rule.

Now; you can believe what you want to believe about a government that wants to exaggerate the stats to make us all terrified (which is illogical no matter how it’s dressed up).

But after spending most of my working life in the public sector, I’m more inclined to believe that the stats are under-reporting if someone is being held to account for higher numbers.

 

Edit: ignore.

 

I wouldn't have allowed Christmas gatherings either, for what it's worth! But that's not the same as lockdown.

Meanwhile:

Hospitals in England asked to look for up to 4,000 emergency Covid beds | NHS | The Guardian

 

Barnsley gets new ICU, equals Barnsley gets a new hospital.
Totally agree mate, government's of all colours have been loose with figures to make them look good. This lot don't just bend the truth they obliterate it.
Senior executives in all government departments are bullied into playing along, or are replaced by willing participants (usually politically appointed mates and stooges). Since 2010 how many senior bosses in the Home Office have been paid off to be removed following scandals which arise from decisions made in government?
That's why we now have a Met which is worse than ever. Why Windrush is still a huge injustice, the list is almost endless. I won't bore you all with a top 40 of illegal acts which have cost the tax payer millions.