Covid-19 Pandemic Thread

[LowlifeDes]

I can't be the only person whose first thought on seeing this picture was "Big Brother"...

Annotation 2020-04-16 210116.png

No, the surprising person would be the one who doesn't.

[The Real Ravenhurst]

I can't be the only person whose first thought on seeing this picture was "Big Brother"...

Annotation 2020-04-16 210116.png

Ha for a minute I thought National Theatre of Wales were doing a new site-specific performance.

[Whiskeyjack]

'she produced a measuring tape from her pocket'

Crazy woman! She should have used a laser distance measurer

Im tempted lean a little towards the commentator who said I’ll file this under things that never happened. It sounds just a Little too bonkers.

[LowlifeDes]

Crazy woman! She should have used a laser distance measurer

Im tempted lean a little towards the commentator who said I’ll file this under things that never happened. It sounds just a Little too bonkers.

Let's hope so

[Joan]

I can't be the only person whose first thought on seeing this picture was "Big Brother"...

Annotation 2020-04-16 210116.png

Looks like Dr Evil's lair.....

So what is it?

[JohnToo]

No, the surprising person would be the one who doesn't.

As witness...

Sorry, I'm clearly playing catch-up here

[Iris]

No, the surprising person would be the one who doesn't.

Mark me as surprising. It reminded me more of a military parade.

[Regulator]

Thanks, again.

I agree that hospitals seem to be coping so far in terms of physical capacity - ICU beds, other beds, etc. I'm less sure they're coping in terms of the demands and pressures on staff. But my understanding is that any retired doctor (in the London area, which is all I have any knowledge of) who indicates that they are willing to return to front-line work is being directed to the Nightingale, not to any existing hospital. Does that feel like the best strategy?

Interesting Twitter thread from Peston:

[Iris]

The replies to the Peston thread point out (a) that this is exactly what they were intended to be used for and (b) it's not hugely sensible to send someone who is very seriously sick to what is basically a field hospital.

The Nightingales, and the purchase of beds from private hospitals, are a sensible risk mitigation measure. They ramp up the NHS's capacity to deal with sick people beyond what is expected - because all the estimates come with so much uncertainty that what is expected might well turn out to be an underestimate.

[Regulator]

The replies to the Peston thread point out (a) that this is exactly what they were intended to be used for and (b) it's not hugely sensible to send someone who is very seriously sick to what is basically a field hospital.

The Nightingales, and the purchase of beds from private hospitals, are a sensible risk mitigation measure. They ramp up the NHS's capacity to deal with sick people beyond what is expected - because all the estimates come with so much uncertainty that what is expected might well turn out to be an underestimate.

What Peston's thread points out is that the public rhetoric from the government and the actuality on the ground are very different.

When the Nightingale Excel was launched, only a few weeks ago, it was intended as a palliative facility, enabling NHS hospitals to concentrate on treating those most likely to recover (i.e. those with the fewest co-morbidities).

Now it is the reverse. It is taking those patients with the fewest co-morbidities and leaving NHS hospitals to deal with the more complex patients. It is taking much needed clinical expertise out of NHS trusts. This means that trusts with physical ICU capacity are struggling with staffing... and clinicians are very clearly saying that it is better for patients to be treated in a trust, with all of the additional facilities that are available, than in a makeshift field hospital.

[Mister Paul]

This is doing the rounds on FB. I'd be interested to know where it originated from....


84% of Care homes in the U.K. are privately owned, charging anywhere from £700 - £2000 per week.
Yet the media would have you believe that it is the governments fault that they do not have adequate PPE.

[Regulator]

This is doing the rounds on FB. I'd be interested to know where it originated from....


84% of Care homes in the U.K. are privately owned, charging anywhere from £700 - £2000 per week.
Yet the media would have you believe that it is the governments fault that they do not have adequate PPE.

It's true. The majority of care homes in the UK are privately owned. That's because successive governments forced (through various means) the closure of what state run provision there was (some of which wasn't particularly good anyway).

And 'privately owned' covers a multitude of ownership types.... private companies, mutuals and charities.

It is also true that many care homes cannot source adequate PPE. That's in part because the government has effectively centralised the control and distribution of clinical grade PPE. Which is actually what you would expect in this situation.

The problem is that the 'control and distribution' bit isn't working - either for hospitals or care homes.

Like you, I do wonder who is behind this Facebook bit...

[Mister Paul]

It's true as far as the percentage of privately owned homes, but that's as far as the truth goes. Government funding cuts means that LAs dictate to homes how much they'll pay for a place, and it starts way below £700. We won't pay that for a nursing bed.

Yes, some people in some places manage to make a profit off running a home, but on the whole homes have struggled for some time. The reason those high figures are banded around is because homes tend to set higher private rates to offset the underfunding from government.

All that this trolling does is encourage those who complain that their inheritance is being slashed because their parents are having to pay their way. I'd suggest not pasting the text from that quote into the search box on FB

[Iris]

When the Nightingale Excel was launched, only a few weeks ago, it was intended as a palliative facility, enabling NHS hospitals to concentrate on treating those most likely to recover (i.e. those with the fewest co-morbidities).

Now it is the reverse. It is taking those patients with the fewest co-morbidities and leaving NHS hospitals to deal with the more complex patients.

Here's a news report from March 30th.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... d-19-cases

"Britain’s first coronavirus field hospital will treat up to 4,000 previously fit and healthy people struck down by Covid-19 once it opens, with sicker patients who are more likely to die being cared for in normal NHS hospitals, according to senior sources with knowledge of the plans."

Plenty of similar reports are available, so the responses to Peston's thread are perfectly correct. It is also rather more sensible to reserve less well-equipped hospitals, whether private or makeshift, for less serious cases than it is to overload them with people requiring more complex care than they can provide.

[Regulator]

Here's a news report from March 30th.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... d-19-cases

"Britain’s first coronavirus field hospital will treat up to 4,000 previously fit and healthy people struck down by Covid-19 once it opens, with sicker patients who are more likely to die being cared for in normal NHS hospitals, according to senior sources with knowledge of the plans."

And if you look at the statements issued before that you see that it was initially intended to "become a large critical care unit where Covid-19 patients with the most complex needs will be treated". That was what was said by Matt Hancock at the briefing on 24 March 2020.

Over the past couple of weeks the guidelines for admissions have repeatedly been updated to ensure that only patients with the least complex needs are admitted. In part that is because when it was completed it was clear it could not be used for the treating patients "with the most complex needs".