Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 27, 2022

dsr-burnley said:
On the other hand, for a lot of dementia patients, it could certainly be argued that it's better to have several daily visitors in a short remaining life than sitting alone and confused for a longer time.

Wow, did I read that right, you are encouraging euthanasia of the confused elderly?

I am sure there are plenty of elderly in care homes, that are not "confused" and may welcome living as long as they can!

Fungus · Jan 27, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
Wow, did I read that right, you are encouraging euthanasia of the confused elderly?

Come on, you know that's NOT what he meant.

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 27, 2022

Oxy McFloppie-Tish said:
Come on, you know that's NOT what he meant.

Clearly (I think) it isn't, but his throw away comments about shaving time off people's lives, so they can lead a happier, shorter existence needed questioning.

As I said, not every old 'un in a care home is confused, many might possibly quite like the idea of living for a few more years.

LamieRobertson · Jan 27, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
Wow, did I read that right, you are encouraging euthanasia of the confused elderly?

I am sure there are plenty of elderly in care homes, that are not "confused" and may welcome living as long as they can!

Now now you are better than that …also as you know living means more than just having a pulse

dsr-burnley · Jan 27, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
Wow, did I read that right, you are encouraging euthanasia of the confused elderly?

I am sure there are plenty of elderly in care homes, that are not "confused" and may welcome living as long as they can!

No, you are not reading it right. Furthermore, I don't think you are trying to read it right.

But let me try and explain in terms that you can understand. If I have a loved one who is confused and has dementia, but who still recognises me and whose highlight of her day is to have me come and visit, them I would come and visit. And if you tell me that by visiting her there is a small risk that she will catch an infection and die, but if I leave her severely alone she will not catch an infection and there is a small chance she will live longer, then I would still visit.

None of us will live for ever. Sometimes there comes a time when we have to accept that it is time to move on. After my 94 year old grandmother's second stroke, we made no attempt to keep her breathing for longer, we allowed her to remain bedridden and unconscious without ventilators and food drips until she died peacefully, because what was left of her possible life would not have been worth living. You might call that euthanasia, I wouldn't.

Life in general is a risk. The question is whether we should enjoy what we have now and take chances that our life will end, or whether we do nothing with our life now and hope that the odds will improve so we can make the best of it later. My mother (happily not in a nursing home, this is a hypothetical example) has approximately a 20% chance of dying in the next year, regardless of coronavirus, if she goes out and about living her normal life. That's just a factor of being old.
But it is possible, if she stops at home and never goes anywhere and does not receive visitors - not even family - that she can eliminate the coronavirus risk altogether and reduce her chances of dying to 19%. Would that be sensible? Of course not.

The question is, at what point do we stop insisting that life is simply a matter of keeping on breathing and accept that life is for living.

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 27, 2022

dsr-burnley said:
No, you are not reading it right. Furthermore, I don't think you are trying to read it right.

But let me try and explain in terms that you can understand. If I have a loved one who is confused and has dementia, but who still recognises me and whose highlight of her day is to have me come and visit, them I would come and visit. And if you tell me that by visiting her there is a small risk that she will catch an infection and die, but if I leave her severely alone she will not catch an infection and there is a small chance she will live longer, then I would still visit.

None of us will live for ever. Sometimes there comes a time when we have to accept that it is time to move on. After my 94 year old grandmother's second stroke, we made no attempt to keep her breathing for longer, we allowed her to remain bedridden and unconscious without ventilators and food drips until she died peacefully, because what was left of her possible life would not have been worth living. You might call that euthanasia, I wouldn't.

Life in general is a risk. The question is whether we should enjoy what we have now and take chances that our life will end, or whether we do nothing with our life now and hope that the odds will improve so we can make the best of it later. My mother (happily not in a nursing home, this is a hypothetical example) has approximately a 20% chance of dying in the next year, regardless of coronavirus, if she goes out and about living her normal life. That's just a factor of being old.
But it is possible, if she stops at home and never goes anywhere and does not receive visitors - not even family - that she can eliminate the coronavirus risk altogether and reduce her chances of dying to 19%. Would that be sensible? Of course not.

The question is, at what point do we stop insisting that life is simply a matter of keeping on breathing and accept that life is for living.

You have made the case, regarding your mother quite eloquently over a number of months. You clearly have your stance regarding life and dying.

I still feel that the open house approach to care homes, with the government putting the onus on care providers, could be a step too far at this stage.

But hey, that's just my opinion! What do I know?

dsr-burnley · Jan 27, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
You have made the case, regarding your mother quite eloquently over a number of months. You clearly have your stance regarding life and dying.

I still feel that the open house approach to care homes, with the government putting the onus on care providers, could be a step too far at this stage.

But hey, that's just my opinion! What do I know?

I wasn't objecting to your opinion that care homes should not have the right to ease restrictions. I was objecting to your suggestion that I (and possibly other people of the same opinion) who think there are advantages to easing restrictions, are doing it because we want people to die.

Yoda · Jan 27, 2022

From a dementia care home perspective, the one my other half works in had one of the staff she works with, fairly closely, test positive last week. Only one resident has since tested positive and no more of the staff have despite testing daily since, and the resident has been fine regarding symptoms.

Billy the Fish · Jan 27, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
Clearly (I think) it isn't, but his throw away comments about shaving time off people's lives, so they can lead a happier, shorter existence needed questioning.

No it doesn't need questioning and it's not a throw away remark.

That's a very real dilemma that people face, not just for covid. In the past I've had to have that conversion regarding close family.

darkwolf666 · Jan 27, 2022

I hope all are keeping OK, and safe as can be.

Weststander · Jan 27, 2022

Tom Hark said:
For sure. Tho that shouldn't mean just removing the barriers that currently (possibly) prevent omicron sweeping through an entire care home. We've been there once before no?

Worth mentioning that Omicron in fully vaccinated folk is nothing like the April 2020 and January 2021 waves.

Covered in some detail on BBC SE news this evening.

The very low hospital and ICU bed numbers comprise unvaccinated and single jabbed patients, many under 40.

dazzer6666 · Jan 28, 2022

DT extract

The majority of Covid patients in English hospitals are not being treated primarily for the virus, latest figures show.

For the first time since the NHS began recording the data, the number of patients being treated “for” Covid has fallen below those “with” Covid.

While 13,023 patients are currently included in the Covid in-hospital figures, just 6,265 (48 per cent) are being treated primarily for the virus.

It is the lowest proportion since these figures were first published in June 2021, and is up from 26 per cent at the start of December.

The disparity is even greater in London, where just 36 per cent of patients are true Covid cases. Primary cases in the Midlands and the South West are also now lower than 50 per cent.

Experts have repeatedly warned that omicron is becoming so prevalent in the community that many people admitted to hospital for other reasons will also test positive for coronavirus, and end up in the Covid figures.

The number of people in hospital in England with primary Covid is now at its lowest since December, having fallen 27 per cent since it peaked at 8,582 patients on January 10.

The percentage of hospital beds being taken up by Covid patients has also fallen to 13.2 per cent compared with 14.8 per cent last week, and 29.8 per cent in last year’s January wave.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...patients-england-not-treated-primarily-virus/

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 28, 2022

dazzer6666 said:
DT extract

The majority of Covid patients in English hospitals are not being treated primarily for the virus, latest figures show.

For the first time since the NHS began recording the data, the number of patients being treated “for” Covid has fallen below those “with” Covid.

While 13,023 patients are currently included in the Covid in-hospital figures, just 6,265 (48 per cent) are being treated primarily for the virus.

It is the lowest proportion since these figures were first published in June 2021, and is up from 26 per cent at the start of December.

The disparity is even greater in London, where just 36 per cent of patients are true Covid cases. Primary cases in the Midlands and the South West are also now lower than 50 per cent.

Experts have repeatedly warned that omicron is becoming so prevalent in the community that many people admitted to hospital for other reasons will also test positive for coronavirus, and end up in the Covid figures.

The number of people in hospital in England with primary Covid is now at its lowest since December, having fallen 27 per cent since it peaked at 8,582 patients on January 10.

The percentage of hospital beds being taken up by Covid patients has also fallen to 13.2 per cent compared with 14.8 per cent last week, and 29.8 per cent in last year’s January wave.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...patients-england-not-treated-primarily-virus/

I can't read that article as its behind a pay wall, however I did hear the same news article on TV this morning, where they gave it the caveat that the "with" Covid category could include those that are more at risk of Covid, like cancer patients.

dazzer6666 · Jan 28, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
I can't read that article as its behind a pay wall, however I did hear the same news article on TV this morning, where they gave it the caveat that the "with" Covid category could include those that are more at risk of Covid, like cancer patients.

It does……also need to take account of the problems this causes for hospitals in terms of keeping covid-positive patients separate. It does give some balance to the overall numbers though.

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 28, 2022

dazzer6666 said:
It does……also need to take account of the problems this causes for hospitals in terms of keeping covid-positive patients separate. It does give some balance to the overall numbers though.

Yep, hopefully this is all going in the right direction.

Fat Boy Fat · Jan 31, 2022

Another Government climb down / U-turn / bowing to pressure / seeing sense* moment coming up, as it looks likely that scrapping mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff is now on the cards. Instead it will be their "duty" to get vaccinated, so pressure, but no mandate.

* delete as applicable, or your stance.

LamieRobertson · Jan 31, 2022

Fat Boy Fat said:
Another Government climb down / U-turn / bowing to pressure / seeing sense* moment coming up, as it looks likely that scrapping mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff is now on the cards. Instead it will be their "duty" to get vaccinated, so pressure, but no mandate.

* delete as applicable, or your stance.

The time wasted and mental anguish this has caused …some may already have left the NHS in England, where we are already short of numbers

Marty___Mcfly · Jan 31, 2022

And the 40,000 sacked care home staff can now be re-employed. Great news.

Billy the Fish · Jan 31, 2022

LamieRobertson said:
The time wasted and mental anguish this has caused …some may already have left the NHS in England, where we are already short of numbers

Was always a f**ckin idiotic policy. They should've dropped it the second it became clear that vaccinations didn't make much difference to transmission.

Kinky Gerbil · Jan 31, 2022

Marty___Mcfly said:
And the 40,000 sacked care home staff can now be re-employed. Great news.

Id imagine most will be asking for more money

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

New member

Well-known member

New member

Not awoke

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

English & European

Technocrat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Not awoke

I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.

Technocrat

Im The Scatman

Share this page