Relaxation of restrictions

lastusername

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You have mapped out two different things here. A routine checkup may catch many cases but doing them now is not a priority and rightly so in my mind. Someone who is scheduled for exploratory surgery based on recommendations of doctors of an underlying problem or based on symptoms that they want to check out is a completely different thing.

A routine checkup and exploratory surgery are about as far apart as you can get...one is just a checkup that can easily be put off as there are no symptoms or evidence of anything wrong - the other is to explore something that needs exploring.

jibber5000

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You have mapped out two different things here. A routine checkup may catch many cases but doing them now is not a priority and rightly so in my mind. Someone who is scheduled for exploratory surgery based on recommendations of doctors of an underlying problem or based on symptoms that they want to check out is a completely different thing.

A routine check up ie by a GP should not be done.

The problem is scopes recommended by a doctor or elective onology surgerys with a confirmed diagnosis. None of the above type of procuderes are being carried out at the moment

Professor Moriarty

alwald wrote: »

What a load of nonsense here. Can you back up your argument that only ICU cases can show a long term effect??

The original poster (KIKI) was right to highlight the long term risks which shouldn't be discarded.

This is a new virus and we only know a little about it so far. In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The long term effects on all those who contract the virus, regardless of the severity of their illness, is a serious issue and should be taken into consideration going forward.

There is much research disproving that argument. To the point that it is 100% wrong.

robinph

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It really isn't, though.

There are people filming and photographing people to shame them on Twitter when they're not doing anything wrong. Just sitting down for a rest on a bench to eat a sandwich can get you branded a 'covidiot', even though the official guidance is that anyone who is older, disabled or just unable to walk much without resting can sit down for a break.

This is what happens when the official advice is so unclear.

Well it your not on Twitter then it probably doesn't really matter to you if someone there is blaming you for something that you've not done wrong.

JoeExotic81

alwald wrote: »

What a load of nonsense here. Can you back up your argument that only ICU cases can show a long term effect??

The original poster (KIKI) was right to highlight the long term risks which shouldn't be discarded.

This is a new virus and we only know a little about it so far. In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The long term effects on all those who contract the virus, regardless of the severity of their illness, is a serious issue and should be taken into consideration going forward.

Literally any of the articles suggesting long term effects :pac:

Try the two linked by the poster who made the original hyperbolic statement.

The only evidence of long term effects so far stem from cases admitted to ICU. people put on ventilators. Don't let facts get in the way of your little nonsense laden rant though

JRant

alwald wrote: »

What a load of nonsense here. Can you back up your argument that only ICU cases can show a long term effect??

The original poster (KIKI) was right to highlight the long term risks which shouldn't be discarded.

This is a new virus and we only know a little about it so far. In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The long term effects on all those who contract the virus, regardless of the severity of their illness, is a serious issue and should be taken into consideration going forward.

How do we know if that heart failure wasn't present before the illness?
I'm not sure we can definitely say one way or the other because it's a novel virus. So attributing heart failure increases to it is all supposition.

WhiteMemento9

jibber5000 wrote: »

A routine check up ie by a GP should not be done.

The problem is scopes recommended by a doctor or elective onology surgerys with a confirmed diagnosis. None of the above type of procuderes are being carried out at the moment

He is talking specifically about a Colonoscopy. Aren't there part of routine screenings for certain age groups? They are often ordered though in a case where symptoms would suggest one is ordered. Those were the two very different cases in my mind. One being a prioity and the other not.

Elective onology surgeries I take to mean, non life threating?

lastusername

lastusername wrote: »

There are a few things in there that nobody has actually said! The guidance is really clear - you are allowed to go out for brief exercise once you stay within 2km, you SHOULD go to the doctor or hospital if you feel unwell or feel you need to investigate something...and nobody has said the virus can be transmitted through ordering food Not unless you're not washing your hands and giving the delivery man a big hug at the door

Indeed, it was some rubbish copied from facebook. Entertainment for mongs whilst also giving them some feeling of unity in criticising & complaining.

Yellow vest type sh1te.

JoeExotic81

JRant wrote: »

How do we know if that heart failure wasn't present before the illness?
I'm not sure we can definitely say one way or the other because it's a novel virus. So attributing heart failure increases to it is all supposition.

The heart failures could just have easily been triggered by any respiratory virus or a spell in ICU. But that doesn't sound half as sensationalist as "COVID-19 CAUSES HEART FAILURE AND LONG TERM LUNG DAMAGE!!" :rolleyes:

Paddygreen

I was just looking at some of the countless doctor and nurse dance videos that are all over YouTube and other platforms. The choreography on a lot of them is fab, must have took ages to learn. It is great to see them keep their spirits up surrounded by so much death. I clap out my landing window for the frontline heros.

alwald

JoeExotic81 wrote: »

Literally any of the articles suggesting long term effects :pac:

Try the two linked by the poster who made the original hyperbolic statement.

The only evidence of long term effects so far stem from cases admitted to ICU. people put on ventilators. Don't let facts get in the way of your little nonsense laden rant though

Did you read what I wrote or are you programmed to reply with nonsense and personal attacks only?

In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The part in bold means no ICU.

The rest of your waffle doesn't deserve the minimum of my attention.

JoeExotic81

alwald wrote: »

Did you read what I wrote or are you programmed to reply with nonsense and personal attacks only?

In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The part in bold means no ICU.

The rest of your waffle doesn't deserve the minimum of my attention.

Give me a link there to back up your nonsense

alwald

JRant wrote: »

How do we know if that heart failure wasn't present before the illness?
I'm not sure we can definitely say one way or the other because it's a novel virus. So attributing heart failure increases to it is all supposition.

The point is it's too early to make one conclusion or another but discarding any possibility of long term effects is literally farcical.

alwald

JoeExotic81 wrote: »

Give me a link there to back up your nonsense

I will give you one but only if you ask nicely!

jibber5000

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

He is talking specifically about a Colonoscopy. Aren't there part of routine screenings for certain age groups? They are often ordered though in a case where symptoms would suggest one is ordered. Those were the two very different cases in my mind. One being a prioity and the other not.

Elective onology surgerys I take to mean, non life threating?

Sorry for not being clear!

Elective oncology procedures ARE life threatening. They have to wait for tissue diagnosis and to arrange theatre slots which takes usually 3-4 weeks. Hence the term elective not emergency.

Colonoscopys can be either as part of surveillance programme or clinically indicated referral by GP.

Ace2007

jibber5000 wrote: »

The fallacy with that argument is that people would not die from the effects of the lockdown.

If you take for example Colorectal Cancer. Approx 2,000 People are diagnosed with it every year. One of the most treatable types of cancer if caught early.
Majority diagnosed through a scope, then have an elective removal by resection of part of the bowel. If no evidence of spread then they dont need chemotherapy and have a >95% 5 year surgical rate.
If it's not caught early and has spread the patient will require chemo and the 5 year survival rate plumets to approx 14%.

For the last 6 weeks there's been no scopes and no elective surgerys and this will probably continue for another 6 weeks.

Straight off the bat that's 500 patients who either won't be diagnosed or who have a diagnosis and surgery is delayed greatly affecting theyre 5 year survival.

Now that's just one disease. Spread that out to lung cancers with bronchoscopys, heart failure - echos, Ct surveillance scans, out patient clinics for any speciality all essentially gone for 2-3 months.

And then you've got people who are too afraid to go to hospital because of Corona. I know ED admissions have plummeted at one hospital and anectodally have heard it's the same all over Ireland.

We know from the figures that over 90% of those who have died in Ireland have 0% ten year survival rates. If you ignore that fact your whole argument is just disingenuous.

No my argument has been consistent, that society should be equipped so that everyone can get on with their lives in some format. However many posters believe that the sick/elderly should remain locked away from society as the risks are too high.

The people you mention above would probably fall into the vulnerable bracket and they are people that a lot of posters feel shouldn't be allowed out and about. There is another thread on here talking about certain ages groups not getting access to ICU because of age etc, so it's affecting all sick/elderly - i prefer that everyone has the same chance, and what they should be looking at is having non-covid hospitals for the above treatments that you have outlined. If you are going in for a procedure/surgery then you have to get a test done and result received within 24 hours before access to non covid hospital for instance.

JoeExotic81

alwald wrote: »

I will give you one but only if you ask nicely!

Scrap that so, save your energy digging that hole you're in even deeper :pac:

Paddygreen

alwald wrote: »

Did you read what I wrote or are you programmed to reply with nonsense and personal attacks only?

In an early study of COVID-19 patients in China, heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who had shown no signs of respiratory distress.

The part in bold means no ICU.

The rest of your waffle doesn't deserve the minimum of my attention.

Chinese studies are fab. If it wasn't for the Chinese leading the way we would all have all had no idea what's going on.

JoeExotic81

Paddygreen wrote: »

Chinese studies are fab. If it wasn't for the Chinese leading the way we would all have all had no idea what's going on.

Brilliant imaginary Chinese studies are even better now!

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

How could I have overestimated when I made no estimation. I have stated that restrictions will be eased. I'm not interested in guessing.

I know very well your position regarding lifting restrictions for all, but that won't happen. The vulnerable cannot and won't have the same freedoms as everyone else until we get a vaccine, which will hopefully come soon.

Why can't they? Why can't society practice social distancing etc, so that everyone in society that wants to go out can do so?

Supermarkets already have special opening times for the elderly etc - it's been done in small scale now - why can't a vulnerable person who wants to live their life not have the same opportunity - while them knowing should they get sick it could be fatal on them? You want them to wait for a vaccine that may never come?

On the comment about your wife, i may have missed that, but thank her for the hard work she is doing - it's appreciated, but it's also not underestimated nor should people think that once a healthcare workers get the virus that they will never get it again, the virus us too young, to know if and how long any immunity lasts for.

niallo27

JoeExotic81 wrote: »

Give me a link there to back up your nonsense

You will just get a generic, Google it.

CtevenSrowder

growleaves wrote: »

Some of the scariest models predicting huge death tolls included restrictions within their predictive framework, such as the ICL model which influenced the UK government.

I have to go out now. I will try and get back to you with numbers, quotes etc. later this evening.

Cheers. It seems to me that ICL made a complete balls of their studies and as such advice to the UK government. I'd be interested in seeing their model versus the ones the HSE used.

jibber5000

Ace2007 wrote: »

No my argument has been consistent, that society should be equipped so that everyone can get on with their lives in some format. However many posters believe that the sick/elderly should remain locked away from society as the risks are too high.

The people you mention above would probably fall into the vulnerable bracket and they are people that a lot of posters feel shouldn't be allowed out and about. There is another thread on here talking about certain ages groups not getting access to ICU because of age etc, so it's affecting all sick/elderly - i prefer that everyone has the same chance, and what they should be looking at is having non-covid hospitals for the above treatments that you have outlined. If you are going in for a procedure/surgery then you have to get a test done and result received within 24 hours before access to non covid hospital for instance.

I do agree there should be non covid hospitals. And this idea is there it's just taking too long to organise. Meanwhile people missing out on procedures.

Respectfully you are wrong on everyone deserving ICU access. For someone with very poor long term survival who needs to be intubated the chances of a good outcome are virtually nil. We wernt doing this before corona nd shouldn't be doing this now

lainey_d_123

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You have mapped out two different things here. A routine checkup may catch many cases but doing them now is not a priority and rightly so in my mind. Someone who is scheduled for exploratory surgery based on recommendations of doctors of an underlying problem or based on symptoms that they want to check out is a completely different thing.

But there could be quite a few deaths caused by a routine procedure like a colonoscopy or a smear test not being done on time.

Also, exploratory surgery is also postponed in many cases. That was my point. I was referred for a reason, but since my head isn't hanging off my body, it's not considered urgent and I have to wait.

niallo27

Ace2007 wrote: »

Why can't they? Why can't society practice social distancing etc, so that everyone in society that wants to go out can do so?

Supermarkets already have special opening times for the elderly etc - it's been done in small scale now - why can't a vulnerable person who wants to live their life not have the same opportunity - while them knowing should they get sick it could be fatal on them? You want them to wait for a vaccine that may never come?

On the comment about your wife, i may have missed that, but thank her for the hard work she is doing - it's appreciated, but it's also not underestimated nor should people think that once a healthcare workers get the virus that they will never get it again, the virus us too young, to know if and how long any immunity lasts for.

Do you think social distancing is enough to stop our hospitals getting overrun.

lainey_d_123

Ace2007 wrote: »

Why can't they? Why can't society practice social distancing etc, so that everyone in society that wants to go out can do so?

Supermarkets already have special opening times for the elderly etc - it's been done in small scale now - why can't a vulnerable person who wants to live their life not have the same opportunity - while them knowing should they get sick it could be fatal on them? You want them to wait for a vaccine that may never come?

On the comment about your wife, i may have missed that, but thank her for the hard work she is doing - it's appreciated, but it's also not underestimated nor should people think that once a healthcare workers get the virus that they will never get it again, the virus us too young, to know if and how long any immunity lasts for.

I think people who are at higher risk need to accept that wider society is making huge sacrifices for them, and there will come a time when they need to give that back. Nobody gets to have it all here.

Social distancing will not eliminate the risk for vulnerable people, so anything short of total lockdown is going to require their cooperation or their acceptance that they are going to be at risk if they go out.

lastusername

lastusername wrote: »

If it's exploratory surgery to find out if something needs addressing, and a person doesn't get that surgery, then by the time it gets done whatever condition may be there could easily have worsened during that delay.

I've got a routine but necessary treatment next week and still going ahead. Also heard of colonoscopies etc being performed. So sounds a bit like hospitals being hit and miss.

Ace2007

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you think social distancing is enough to stop our hospitals getting overrun.

Well if not - the minute you open up restriction, cases will sky rocket, and so no one will be allowed out.

So your either on the fence will good social distancing practice, along with hygenie practice, etc that it will help reduce the spread.

Or you of the opinion it won't, and the hospitals will get overrun within days/weeks.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

No my argument has been consistent, that society should be equipped so that everyone can get on with their lives in some format. However many posters believe that the sick/elderly should remain locked away from society as the risks are too high.

The people you mention above would probably fall into the vulnerable bracket and they are people that a lot of posters feel shouldn't be allowed out and about. There is another thread on here talking about certain ages groups not getting access to ICU because of age etc, so it's affecting all sick/elderly - i prefer that everyone has the same chance, and what they should be looking at is having non-covid hospitals for the above treatments that you have outlined. If you are going in for a procedure/surgery then you have to get a test done and result received within 24 hours before access to non covid hospital for instance.

No, many posters believe those that are high risk should be advised to maintain social distancing, not locked away. You make it sound like we want to cart these people of to some sort of modern day Magdalene Laundry.

Ace2007

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I think people who are at higher risk need to accept that wider society is making huge sacrifices for them, and there will come a time when they need to give that back. Nobody gets to have it all here.

Social distancing will not eliminate the risk for vulnerable people, so anything short of total lockdown is going to require their cooperation or their acceptance that they are going to be at risk if they go out.

But your saying different to others, other's have said that sick/vulnerable will have to stay away until a vaccine is found.

Going back to a cancer patient on chemo for instance, does that mean they can't get treatment until a vaccine is found because the risks are too high, are you taking that choice out of their hands?