COVID19

[Which Tyler]

Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the >75s, the medially vulnerable with the >65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the >55s

[Stom]

So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

[Sandydragon]

Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

[morepork]

So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

[morepork]

Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

I think diabetic, thyroid issues, and heart conditions would be the more objective and medically appropriate definition of threshold.

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

[Sandydragon]

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

I think diabetic, thyroid issues, and heart conditions would be the more objective and medically appropriate definition of threshold.

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

No arguments there. And I'd add those in teaching and other education roles to that as well. In my wife's school, teachers are dropping like flies.

[Which Tyler]

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable lists available here (and updated semi-regularly)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... oronavirus

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

For my suggestion, I'm counting them as socio-economically vulnerable - so things like occupational exposure, poverty, BAME, location etc

[Puja]

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

For my suggestion, I'm counting them as socio-economically vulnerable - so things like occupational exposure, poverty, BAME, location etc

Unfortunately, we have a Conservative government, so I suspect socio-economic vulnerability will probably be less important than "job creators" and "investment pioneers". If people didn't want to be at greater risk for Covid, then they should have worked harder not to've been poor, shouldn't they?

Puja

[Stom]

So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

[Which Tyler]

1606996770904.png

[morepork]

So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

[Stom]

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

[morepork]

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Reported deaths:infections there suggests a mortality of 3%. The UK ditto. The US is 2%. It's pretty constant the world over. I'm saying that maybe Hungary just hasn't been hit with the volume of cases all at once that some other countries have. That's a good thing.

I hope you don't end up getting a tracheotomy from a stone mason, but I'm not sure the stats for death after intubation are a fair judge of the quality of the staff. If you are on a ventilator things are pretty fucking grim. The CDC here has calculated the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients is 21% (it's 4% for influenza), which is meeting somewhere in the middle of triage on a ventilator and a mild stay in a hospital bed. I think the straight line is the shortest distance between two points, and this coronavirus is just one spiteful little cunty balls that can quickly swamp the scene if left unchecked.

[Sandydragon]

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Survival rates for the UK weren’t great for those on ventilators, at least not initially. I think as Morepork points out, if you are on a ventilator you are already in serious trouble. My understanding is that since the early days, medical staff have improved outcomes in the most seriously ill.

[Stom]

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Survival rates for the UK weren’t great for those on ventilators, at least not initially. I think as Morepork points out, if you are on a ventilator you are already in serious trouble. My understanding is that since the early days, medical staff have improved outcomes in the most seriously ill.

Oh they have, just not much over here. It’s got a lot to do with the fact the government hasn’t spent a penny on upgrading crumbling hospitals and 30 year old equipment, choosing to spend the money on new football stadia instead.

[morepork]

Managing the disease has definitely improved. An acute problem here is having enough qualified staff on hand. During last spring and summer there were isolated foci for outbreaks to which extra staff were sent to from elsewhere. Now there are dozens of acute fronts and not enough staff to deal with it because it's fucking everywhere. Again, an entirely predictable state of affairs.

[Sandydragon]

Managing the disease has definitely improved. An acute problem here is having enough qualified staff on hand. During last spring and summer there were isolated foci for outbreaks to which extra staff were sent to from elsewhere. Now there are dozens of acute fronts and not enough staff to deal with it because it's fucking everywhere. Again, an entirely predictable state of affairs.

Added to which the fact that medical staff are now knackered and it’s winter so other illnesses are also prevalent; the NHS is coping pretty well all things considered.

[Digby]

Nottingham nicely summing up how much you can trust the great British common sense to go out for a few drinks. We might not be able to organise a piss up in a brewery, but we can take a shit in the doorway

[Galfon]

Yes, setting up an event for thousands to attend knowing that these days hospitalty venues provide the only public bogs (and are closed) is asking for it - can't even dig a hole in the sand...

Meanwhile,
Europe latest - deaths/m. popn.
(off Worldo')

top ten:
1. Belgium 1508
2 San Marino 1443
3. Italy 1022
4. Andorra 1009
5. Spain 988
6. Bosnia 963
7. North Mac 949
8. UK 920
9. Slovenia 914
10.Montenegro 885

The storm still raging in the Western Balkans; too quick to re-open after first wave maybe..

(others- Fra 862, Sweden 720,
Hungary 651, Russia 306
Germany 243, Serbia 243)

Bottom of the pile/coping best - still Nordic/Baltic region, Swe excepted.:
Denmark 156
Latvia 156
(Gibraltar 148)
Estonia 105
Finland 78
(Monaco 76)
Norway 66

This winter will be a slog - 'murrica seems to be in for another round.

[Lizard]

I’ve finally got around to properly kitting out my WFH office - built a new desk with proper drawers, got my cable management under control, wired broadband, two wall-mounted monitors, sofa, stereo etc.

Quite keen for another lock down so I can test it out properly. We’re sitting on 5 deaths per million (0 since September) 55 current cases (all quarantined from the border), so I might not get the chance.

[morepork]

I’ve finally got around to properly kitting out my WFH office - built a new desk with proper drawers, got my cable management under control, wired broadband, two wall-mounted monitors, sofa, stereo etc.

Quite keen for another lock down so I can test it out properly. We’re sitting on 5 deaths per million (0 since September) 55 current cases (all quarantined from the border), so I might not get the chance.

I will spend two weeks in an airport hotel, pay for it, slap you, and fly out the next day just to have the satisfaction of slapping the smug off you.

[Puja]

The number of US COVID deaths per day is now exceeding the total number of deaths from September 11th.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I’ve finally got around to properly kitting out my WFH office - built a new desk with proper drawers, got my cable management under control, wired broadband, two wall-mounted monitors, sofa, stereo etc.

Quite keen for another lock down so I can test it out properly. We’re sitting on 5 deaths per million (0 since September) 55 current cases (all quarantined from the border), so I might not get the chance.

I had all that set up before the lockdown. Been really helpful.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The number of US COVID deaths per day is now exceeding the total number of deaths from September 11th.

Puja

Strangely different reaction to those two numbers from the Republicans.

I'm particularly impressed with the way that, even in the second wave, the UKs daily Covid deaths often exceed South Korea's total deaths to date.

[morepork]

There has been absolutely zero nation wide coordination and so this is no surprise to anyone with even a passing knowledge of disease-bearing vectors. Its fucking pathetic.