Coronavirus Thread

[Stivo]

14 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Call handlers are not qualified to make that decision. They would pass it on to the CAT. If the phone assessment by the "Clinical Assessment Team (manned by experienced paramedics with support from a duty doctor") suggests that the chest pain is NOT a heart attack then maybe so, but it's very risky ground to be on and I suspect those decisions are very few and far between. That chest pain or sudden loss of neurological function needs on the spot assessment.

It may be that crews or responder at the scene make an assessment and THEN decide the patient is not in a life threatening condition but will need further assessment and refer the call back to the CAT. In that case the patient may well be asked to make their own way. I have given this advice myself many times. An ambulance response does not necessarily equal ambulance transport to hospital. 

I'm only speaking from my personal experience of what actually happens.

I have looked on HSJ, the advice applies to  category 2 ( 18 minute target ) as the ambulance response time is 2 hours… so yes strokes and heart attacks.

 

it also says that they have used taxis to transport covid patients??

Edited 4 January 2022 by Stivo

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

It's like living in a third-world country:

Heart attack patients told to make own way to hospital...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/growth-rate-covid-patients-north-more-than-double-london

 

31 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, it was reported by the Health Service Journal:

 

An internal note at North East ambulance service NHS foundation trust said that where there was likely to be a risk from the delay in an ambulance reaching a patient, call handlers should “consider asking the patient to be transported by friends or family”, the Health Service Journal reported.

 

16 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Call handlers are not qualified to make that decision. They would pass it on to the CAT. If the phone assessment by the "Clinical Assessment Team (manned by experienced paramedics with support from a duty doctor") suggests that the chest pain is NOT a heart attack then maybe so, but it's very risky ground to be on and I suspect those decisions are very few and far between and based on very specific parameters. That chest pain or sudden loss of neurological function needs on the spot assessment.

It may be that crews or responder at the scene make an assessment and THEN decide the patient is not in a life threatening condition but will need further assessment and refer the call back to the CAT. In that case the patient may well be asked to make their own way. I have given this advice myself many times. An ambulance response does not necessarily equal ambulance transport to hospital. 

I'm only speaking from my personal experience of what actually happens.

 

7 minutes ago, Stivo said:

I have looked on HSJ, the advice applies to  category 2 ( 18 minute target ) as the ambulance response time is 2 hours… so yes strokes and heart attacks.

You're right  and thanks for taking the time. It's nonetheless a misleading article as it is not reporting on the facts of ambulance responses.

[shade]

Is this miscommunication or misinformation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 January 2022 by shade

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, shade said:

Is this miscommunication or misinformation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for not taking the time to listen to the video or read all the stuff BUT please remember that this pandemic is a fluid situation. What was said last April may not have been correct the following day !   vaccines that were very effective against Alpha infection suddenly became effective against delta serious disease rather than infection.  
 

if you are going to analyse historic quotes and interviews, please make sure that you retain context 

[BertFill]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

if you are going to analyse historic quotes and interviews, please make sure that you retain context

Good luck with this.

[Babylon]

45 minutes ago, shade said:

Is this miscommunication or misinformation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you even attempt to search out the full quotes when you post memes? I mean if this is how you go about getting your information you are in trouble.

 

"So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely - not impossible but very, very low likelihood - that they're going to transmit it," Fauci said.

Fauci added that vaccinated people essentially become "dead ends" for the virus to spread within their communities.

"When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community," Fauci said. "In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community."

 

That was in May, before delta and before omicron. It is utterly pointless really taking old, out of context and quotes and applying them to today.

 

Ask him now, and I’m sure the answer would be slightly different. 

[BertFill]

14 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It is utterly pointless really taking old, out of context and quotes and applying them to today.

Unfortunately, it isn’t. It helps to spread doubt and mistrust of ‘experts.’ Why some people want to achieve this at any time, never mind in the midst of a pandemic, lord only knows, and I dread to think. But they do.

[shade]

8 minutes ago, BertFill said:

Unfortunately, it isn’t. It helps to spread doubt and mistrust of ‘experts.’ Why some people want to achieve this at any time, never mind in the midst of a pandemic, lord only knows, and I dread to think. But they do.

Did you listen to the video? It's just over a minute long.

 

When Fauci is interviewed this month, instead of saying what's been said here, something along the lines of...but other variants have come along which means it doesn't stop infection (it never really did, the UK's figures in February 2021 show double jabbed still getting infected), he says that the studies showed prevention of disease, not infection and that people had misinterpreted it. Then it cuts to him in May saying it prevents infection.

 

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, shade said:

Did you listen to the video? It's just over a minute long.

 

When Fauci is interviewed this month, instead of saying what's been said here, something along the lines of...but other variants have come along which means it doesn't stop infection (it never really did, the UK's figures in February 2021 show double jabbed still getting infected), he says that the studies showed prevention of disease, not infection and that people had misinterpreted it. Then it cuts to him in May saying it prevents infection.
 

Disease and infection are the same thing ??

[dsr-burnley]

fao Shade - the reason the WHO changed their definition of what a vaccine does, is that many people thought that "immunity" meant you could get infected.  The new definition makes it clear that "immunity" means that your body is capable of fighting off the infection.

 

No vaccine can stop you breathing in a virus.  A vaccine helps you get rid of it once it's in.

[WigstonWanderer]

28 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

fao Shade - the reason the WHO changed their definition of what a vaccine does, is that many people thought that "immunity" meant you could get infected.  The new definition makes it clear that "immunity" means that your body is capable of fighting off the infection.

 

No vaccine can stop you breathing in a virus.  A vaccine helps you get rid of it once it's in.

I believe the term for what most people think of as immunity is actually “sterilising immunity”. This is where a vaccine is so effective that it completely prevents infection. AFAIK it is extremely rare, with the only one I’ve heard of being the measles vaccine.

 

The Covid vaccines have been a bit disappointing in this respect and have probably not lived up to initial hopes, both in protection from infection and duration of protection. Part of the problem is obviously the emergence of new variants. Nevertheless they do seem to be extremely good at preventing serious disease, and that in itself is something of a miracle, and ultimately more important.

Edited 4 January 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, BertFill said:

Unfortunately, it isn’t. It helps to spread doubt and mistrust of ‘experts.’ Why some people want to achieve this at any time, never mind in the midst of a pandemic, lord only knows, and I dread to think. But they do.

Power.

 

They're sociopaths who think they can use this event for their own personal gain. Division and mistrust helps them gain and keep that power, for various reasons. And it probably gets them off to see so many people buying into what they are selling.

 

Of course, controlling or predicting an act of nature is next to impossible and it may well end up rebounding upon them in the end too - after all, they're only human. So they're misguided and egotistical as well as sociopathic.

[Babylon]

5 hours ago, shade said:

Did you listen to the video? It's just over a minute long.

 

When Fauci is interviewed this month, instead of saying what's been said here, something along the lines of...but other variants have come along which means it doesn't stop infection (it never really did, the UK's figures in February 2021 show double jabbed still getting infected), he says that the studies showed prevention of disease, not infection and that people had misinterpreted it. Then it cuts to him in May saying it prevents infection.
 

Have you actually been bothered to watch any of these interviews in full, or like your little memes are you relying on people serving up tiny out of context slices of information?

 

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

fao Shade - the reason the WHO changed their definition of what a vaccine does, is that many people thought that "immunity" meant you could get infected.  The new definition makes it clear that "immunity" means that your body is capable of fighting off the infection.

 

No vaccine can stop you breathing in a virus.  A vaccine helps you get rid of it once it's in.

On their website it’s different to what he’s even posted. Another case of not looking at the source to check.

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, shade said:

Did you listen to the video? It's just over a minute long.

 

When Fauci is interviewed this month, instead of saying what's been said here, something along the lines of...but other variants have come along which means it doesn't stop infection (it never really did, the UK's figures in February 2021 show double jabbed still getting infected), he says that the studies showed prevention of disease, not infection and that people had misinterpreted it. Then it cuts to him in May saying it prevents infection.

 

The original trials defines protection one thing, follow up trails with vaccine in real world defined it as another. 
 

Original:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

 

Follow Up:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3790399

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888 this is the one the woman you keep posting was discussing. She was actually talking about her worries for variants and also discussed this trial which showed almost total lack of infection viab testing in health care workers compared to vaccinated)

 

Nobody was wrong saying it prevented infections, it just depends on what study they are referring to in terms of what that means exactly, as the definitions are different and how they measured it differs. 
 

 

You seem to get very hung up on pointless semantics. If someone says a seat belt is there to prevent death, it doesn’t mean you won’t die if you drive off the edge of a cliff. 
 

Not only that, people are human, they will get things wrong and make mistakes and sometimes say the wrong thing. That’s why looking at whole interviews are important, because generally with content of the discussion things look rather different.

 

The Ted talk clips of Bill Gates spring to mind, watch the whole 30 minutes show and you are left in no doubt what he’s saying, watch a 30 second sound bit and “OMG Bill Gates wants to kill people and depopulate the planet”.

Edited 5 January 2022 by Babylon

[shade]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Power.

 

They're sociopaths who think they can use this event for their own personal gain. Division and mistrust helps them gain and keep that power, for various reasons. And it probably gets them off to see so many people buying into what they are selling.

 

Of course, controlling or predicting an act of nature is next to impossible and it may well end up rebounding upon them in the end too - after all, they're only human. So they're misguided and egotistical as well as sociopathic.

I hate this response, sorry, I also think it's incredibly insidious. If you're talking about Janet on Facebook saying the vaccine has microchips in it, or everyone is going to die, then they're just fools not sociopaths.

 

If you're talking about Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough, two experts in their relative fields, with absolutely nothing to gain, talking out against the vaccine (even if they're wrong), then I hate what you've just said, sorry.

 

I notice you don't hold "your side" to the same standards and call Dr Hilary, Lorraine and Spandeu Ballet guy sociopaths when they spread misinformation, that could scare people, or any of the countless other times the established narrative has proven to be "wrong".

[HighPeakFox]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

I hate this response, sorry, I also think it's incredibly insidious. If you're talking about Janet on Facebook saying the vaccine has microchips in it, or everyone is going to die, then they're just fools not sociopaths.

 

If you're talking about Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough, two experts in their relative fields, with absolutely nothing to gain, talking out against the vaccine (even if they're wrong), then I hate what you've just said, sorry.

 

I notice you don't hold "your side" to the same standards and call Dr Hilary, Lorraine and Spandeu Ballet guy sociopaths when they spread misinformation, that could scare people, or any of the countless other times the established narrative has proven to be "wrong".

I don't think he's talking about any of those people. And I'm not sure that insidious is the right word for it either.

[shade]

1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

I don't think he's talking about any of those people. And I'm not sure that insidious is the right word for it either.

It's absolutely the right word, I see the sentiment that guides his utterances. I hear what people say about the unvaccinated, both in the media and at the school gates. I watch experts that question the established science getting shut down.

 

Insidious is absolutely the right word. You will claim I'm being hyperbolic, or dramatic, but I fear what's coming for the unvaccinated far more than I fear the virus.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, shade said:

It's absolutely the right word, I see the sentiment that guides his utterances. I hear what people say about the unvaccinated, both in the media and at the school gates. I watch experts that question the established science getting shut down.

 

Insidious is absolutely the right word. You will claim I'm being hyperbolic, or dramatic, but I fear what's coming for the unvaccinated far more than I fear the virus.

The unvaccinated - the real victims in this. How stupid of me not to realise.

[shade]

7 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

The unvaccinated - the real victims in this. How stupid of me not to realise.

We're all victims, we're all human beings. Never forget that.

[z-layrex]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

It's absolutely the right word, I see the sentiment that guides his utterances. I hear what people say about the unvaccinated, both in the media and at the school gates. I watch experts that question the established science getting shut down.

 

Insidious is absolutely the right word. You will claim I'm being hyperbolic, or dramatic, but I fear what's coming for the unvaccinated far more than I fear the virus.

The more restrictions on the unvaccinated the better.

[st albans fox]

33 minutes ago, shade said:

It's absolutely the right word, I see the sentiment that guides his utterances. I hear what people say about the unvaccinated, both in the media and at the school gates. I watch experts that question the established science getting shut down.

 

Insidious is absolutely the right word. You will claim I'm being hyperbolic, or dramatic, but I fear what's coming for the unvaccinated far more than I fear the virus.

Is it the same feeling as when the opposition win a corner ? 

[shade]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Is it the same feeling as when the opposition win a corner ? 

Definitely not THAT scary, that's touching cloth time.

[z-layrex]

28 minutes ago, shade said:

We're all victims, we're all human beings. Never forget that.

And I don't want you to think my resentmentt of what the unvaccinated have done to me and my colleagues (totally avoidably) somehow means we treat them any differently, we don't of course we don't, but I'm so tired of seeing people suffer and die for no reason like this. If making their life so intolerable they get it is what it takes at this point, so be it.

[BertFill]

54 minutes ago, shade said:

I fear what's coming for the unvaccinated far more than I fear the virus

The virus is what’s most likely to be coming for the unvaccinated. Probably a new variant, itself made more likely by the fact that not enough people are vaccinated. And maybe not all the variants will be as comparatively undeadly as Omicron.

[BertFill]

I have a theory that anyone who uses the word ‘narrative’ in discussions of coronavirus (or in fact probably anything, except literature or films) can probably be safely disregarded.