COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[cleavers]

London patients up 457 - 467 (wk ago 314) Ventilators up 80 - 82 (wk ago 52)

Flat apparently.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Lots of reasons and at this point not relevant to us. We have to deal with things as we are today. Starting with protecting hospitals getting too full, especially at a time of year they are already under pressure.
The only question that counts is if we don’t reduce numbers admitted to hospital which are increasing, by introducing restrictions in areas under most pressure, how do we reduce numbers. I’m yet to here an alternative way to cut those numbers needing treatment. Do you have one?

So you dont know. but still think its irrelevant?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

So many variables for a comparison but you carry on

i think the likley biggest varriable is the way deaths are counted. In Germany you have to died because of Covid, in the UK if you die of something else but have covid, it goes down as a covid death which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[blueparrot]

So you dont know. but still think its irrelevant?

Oh I have a good idea, but arguing about it here today is irrelevant. May just as well say lets do what New Zealand did, compared to how we act here today in this country with our circumstances.
Apart from saying look at a country with completely different circumstances what is you alternative for the action we should take to reduce hospital admissions now, that doesn’t involve restrictions in under pressure areas ?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Oh I have a good idea, but arguing about it here today is irrelevant. May just as well say lets do what New Zealand did, compared to how we act here today in this country with our circumstances.
Apart from saying look at a country with completely different circumstances what is you alternative for the action we should take to reduce hospital admissions now, that doesn’t involve restrictions in under pressure areas ?

you would make a good politician with an answer like that. The point is Sweden is not dissimilar to the UK in many ways. but have dealt with the virus better than us if you believe the death numbers personally i think thats where the comparisson falls apart.

 

[blueparrot]

you would make a good politician with an answer like that. The point is Sweden is not dissimilar to the UK in many ways. but have dealt with the virus better than us if you believe the death numbers personally i think thats where the comparisson falls apart.

Nothing like the UK. I see no alternative offered.

 

[BigJoe#1]

So many variables for a comparison but you carry on

Thanks...

Country........CV19 Deaths as a % of total pop.

Norway.........0.005%
Finland.........0.006%
Germany.......0.011%
Denmark.......0.012%
France.........0.051%
Sweden........0.058%
Italy............0.060%
UK..............0.065%
Spain...........0.072%

Sweden not the best but certainly not the worst, their benefit is they never crippled their economy to get here and they have a clear identifiable area that the messed up on, Care Homes.

 

[squirtyflower]

Burnham won't back down on tier 3 unless there is more money on offer, and then he would reconsider?

They are hardly the actions of a person who is putting the health of Manchester first, either!

Added to the fact he has already said he would actually support another national lockdown, he's making himself look even more stupid than Boris.

The Manchester public would be impacted just the same.

He's making it a party issue and sending the same confusing messages.

The truth is there is no money left, we threw it in an obvious blind panic the first time around, the wider economy is already tanked.

The money now on offer is essentially the best it's gonna get, in a bid to just kick the can down the road a little while longer and help the NHS save as many lives as possible before hopefully a vaccine is rolled out.

Burnham is a snake.
Putting a party political point scoring effort before the lives of the residents of Greater Manchester.

like I said yesterday you have a party screaming for a stronger lockdown across the country whilst denying it to those in most need of a lockdown, the irony is lost on some of the blind on this thread

 

[BigJoe#1]

Nothing like the UK. I see no alternative offered.

My personal view is any type of lockdown would be low down the list of possible solutions. Here is a very high level overview.

I would prefer to see a solution whereby all the money we're currently spending on saving businesses, being spent on protecting the the vulnerable people that need shielding = this by providing intensive support through various means.

I would tell all Businesses (Hospitality, Hairdressers, shops, offices etc,,,to remain open but to deploy effective Covid 19 safe strategies.... entry/exit controls, masks, social distancing, working from home etc...

I would advise the younger people (say under 60's) that they should continue to work but look after themselves and take care and stay safe, this way I would hope the virus would transfer around that community and be kept away from the older generation and care homes and hospitals,

The money that was saved by not paying job protection and furlough etc.... I would ensure through investment, that there were first class quick turnaround testing facilities available to:

Care Homes
Hospitals
anyone that was symptomatic,

This might have to stay in place for six months or maybe more but the essence would be the country would continue working and generate revenue that would pay taxes and wages.

to continue locking down in the hope we will rid ourselves of the virus is in my opinion pointless, it will keep coming back and we will be in this position forever and a day until a vaccine is found, this is something that I believe is totally unrealistic. The public just wont accept it.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Not really.

We have 6 times more people in our capital than Sweden does, their 2nd biggest City would only rank 13th in a list of our urban areas, and their 3rd would rank 27th, a bit smaller than Newport in South Wales, the 4th is about the same size as Burnley in 54th. They have 8 cities above 100k, we have at least 76, which includes places like Lincoln, Burton on Trent and High Wycombe.

the population density of Stockholm is 5012 per square km, whereas London is 5590 per square km. I think you have to look at the density of these areas if you want to make this type of comparison.