Coronavirus

[ardcarp]

Our wonderful government

Just got this from our dental practice. You don't even have to read between the lines to see that they're really p****d off about what the government's done for them.

Just thought we'd send you a quick email with regards to the potential re-opening of Dental Practices. We have received a number of telephone calls from patients requesting routine appointments following the 'Breaking News' that scrolled up below Boris Johnson yesterday afternoon during his public address. Sadly this was the first we had heard about Dental Practices re-opening in June, and have since only received limited guidance from NHS England regarding this.

We are now in the process of planning how the surgery will have to work when we do re-open, and this will of course be conditional on us being able to obtain the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to be able to provide any sort of direct care. It is unlikely that we will be re-opening on 8th June but are aiming to be able to provide some face-to-face care as soon as we can after this date. Initially this will only be for basic, emergency treatment, and we will be very limited on the number of patients we will be able to see each day. We will be unable to provide 'routine' care and treatments that involve Aerosol Generating Procedures (AGPs) - i.e. those using high speed drills or ultrasonic scalers, for the foreseeable future. The masks we have been told we must wear for these procedures are currently unobtainable as they are all needed in Hospital settings where care is being provided for patients with Coronavirus. Hopefully, in time, as the number of critically ill patients reduces this PPE wil become more readily available to us so that we can begin providing the full range of care again.

In the mean time we would politely ask that you don't contact us with a view to booking routine appointments over the next few weeks - we are hoping we shall be able to begin this later in the year but can't be certain at this stage. We are however still here to triage patients with dental problems over the telephone and give advice, or refer to an Urgent Dental Care Hub should this be necessary. We are hopeful we should be able to start providing some of this care ourselves over the next few weeks. If you have an appointment for routine treatment, or check-ups in the near future, we will be in touch separately to discuss rearranging these.



(My bold lettering.)

[zola]

This is all going to go horribly wrong.

From the BBC news web site..."Relaxing lockdown is a risk because levels of the coronavirus are still at "very high" levels, one of the government's top science advisers says. Prof John Edmunds said it was a "political decision" to lift lockdown and that "many" scientists would wait. The warning comes as Sage, the scientists advising government, publish details of their confidential meetings. One meeting on 23 April estimated there would be only 1,000 cases per day by mid-May. Instead, estimates by the Office for National Statistics suggest there are currently 8,000 cases per day in England alone. Those figures don't include cases in care homes or hospitals. "Many of us would prefer to see the incidence down to lower levels before we relax measures," Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, said.

[Count Boso]

This is all going to go horribly wrong.

I think all that is what, in our bones, many of us non-experts have felt. For those who are feeling the need for a relaxation in the regulations (for whatever reason - financial, mental health, boredom, social isolation etc), the news is welcomed. While those who have none of these anxieties (among whom I include myself) have the luxury of scepticism.

[teamsaint]

This is all going to go horribly wrong.

From the BBC news web site..."Relaxing lockdown is a risk because levels of the coronavirus are still at "very high" levels, one of the government's top science advisers says. Prof John Edmunds said it was a "political decision" to lift lockdown and that "many" scientists would wait. The warning comes as Sage, the scientists advising government, publish details of their confidential meetings. One meeting on 23 April estimated there would be only 1,000 cases per day by mid-May. Instead, estimates by the Office for National Statistics suggest there are currently 8,000 cases per day in England alone. Those figures don't include cases in care homes or hospitals. "Many of us would prefer to see the incidence down to lower levels before we relax measures," Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, said.

Well we can hope that the ONS estimates turn out to be big over estimates. But I’m not optimistic about that .

I think they are playing a very high risk game.

[Count Boso]

This is what the scientific adviser said (video):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-52855175/coronavirus-relaxing-lockdown-a-value-judgement

[johnb]

This is all going to go horribly wrong.

From the BBC news web site..."Relaxing lockdown is a risk because levels of the coronavirus are still at "very high" levels, one of the government's top science advisers says. Prof John Edmunds said it was a "political decision" to lift lockdown and that "many" scientists would wait.

There is an article in today's Guardian where Prof David Hunter is also critical of the government easing the lockdown at this time. His view is that there were two options - to further push down the number of infections, giving us a chance of suppressing the virus or easing the lockdown while there is a high level of infections with the likely result of continuing infections and the death rate stabilising at too high a level.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/28/coronavirus-infection-rate-too-high-second-wave

[johnb]

Instead, estimates by the Office for National Statistics suggest there are currently 8,000 cases per day in England alone. Those figures don't include cases in care homes or hospitals. "Many of us would prefer to see the incidence down to lower levels before we relax measures," Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, said.

8,000 cases per day implies 80 deaths per day (some 3 or 4 weeks after the infection). Once you add in the care home deaths one probably looking at, say, 120 to 150 deaths per day. If R_e is close to 1 then the infections and deaths will only decline very slowly or might even stabilse at that level.

What really annoys the hell out of me is when politicians and even the CMO and CSO say the aim is to keep the R number (R_e) below 1. For heaven's sake that is the absolute minimum - we should be aiming to push R_e much, much lower than 1 otherwise we will only have a very, very slow decline in infections.

[Dave2002]

What really annoys the hell out of me is when politicians and even the CMO and CSO say the aim is to keep the R number (R_e) below 1. For heaven's sake that is the absolute minimum - we should be aiming to push R_e much, much lower than 1 otherwise we will only have a very, very slow decline in infections.

Indeed. If R is not much lower than 1 there will be a very long tail to the daily infections and daily deaths, so although at the moment with a minimum of over 38000 deaths so far (May 29, 20200), 50,000 total UK deaths looks quite a long way off (it may not be, as the data is very likely significantly under reported, for various reasons), over time that will probably happen. Indeed with a long tail, deaths ascribable to this disease could go over 50,000.

From the reporting point of view there could eventually come a time when illness and death from this disease are simply ignored - if the deaths due to CV19 become comparable with deaths due to other factors - so public risk perception is that the problem is "not much worse than 'flu" - but that view to date has clearly not been correct, and playing down the damage due to CV19 doesn't appear to have been a good message. Besides the numbers, some people do seem to get horribly ill, and may have horrible deaths. Politicians may wish the CV19 figures to merge in with the background of other diseases, to let themselves off the hook, but it hasn't happened yet.

Vietnam seems to have done rather well, but it imposed rigorous controls early on - making a decision to go ahead of advice from other countries, unlike the UK which appears to have lost a lot of time by waiting, and then waiting further to "see what happens", before finally deciding to go for more robust measures. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been a good strategy, as we have lost a lot of lives, yet not built up anything like sufficient herd immunity.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/29/a...hnk/index.html Vietnam news.

However, minimising deaths in a country doesn't "solve" the big problem. If a country is effectively virus free, or has a very low number of manageable cases, it could still lose control if the virus is reintroduced. The UK still has a very long way to go before it becomes virus free, but the possibility of reintroducing cases will still be present even if things do improve significantly.

[LMcD]

It's comforting to know that we're still 'following the science', by which is presumably meant 'following the advice of those scientists who share our view and those who haven't gone public with their reservations'.

[oddoneout]

8,000 cases per day implies 80 deaths per day (some 3 or 4 weeks after the infection). Once you add in the care home deaths one probably looking at, say, 120 to 150 deaths per day. If R_e is close to 1 then the infections and deaths will only decline very slowly or might even stabilse at that level.

What really annoys the hell out of me is when politicians and even the CMO and CSO say the aim is to keep the R number (R_e) below 1. For heaven's sake that is the absolute minimum - we should be aiming to push R_e much, much lower than 1 otherwise we will only have a very, very slow decline in infections.

The problems of a figure becoming a target instead of a maximum limit? Reminds me of an episode of a TV documentary series when a rather exasperated GP was trying to get through to a young woman about her alcohol consumption. She claimed to know the 'guideline figures' and reckoned she was observing them. He had to point out that they were maximum intake figures for a week, not daily targets to aim for...

[zola]

'We rely on the public to apply common sense'. Not much of that on display in Dorset today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52864454

[oddoneout]

'We rely on the public to apply common sense'. Not much of that on display in Dorset today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52864454

Can't say I'm surprised;I saw a picture yesterday of a young man jumping off while an older one was swimming in the sea below and thought 'accident waiting to happen'.

[teamsaint]

I am beginning to think that the government had deliberately handled this badly. I think they think they can bluster through it, blaming the failures on others, and that the damage will be to their advantage, and the same applies to the no deal brexit they crave.

It is beyond pathetic.

The country is nowhere near a suitable state for easing lockdown, and god knows I want it eased. The “reopening “ or extended opening of schools is reckless to say the least. Professional sport being restarted is a nonsense too, other than for the money people.
What a bloody shambles.

I wonder how Thatcher would have dealt with it?

[muzzer]

Thatcher possibly would have locked down early and hard. We’d have arguably benefited from her sadistic streak. Remember, “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”

[johncorrigan]

Thatcher possibly would have locked down early and hard. We’d have arguably benefited from her sadistic streak. Remember, “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”

Only if the market told her to, muzzer!