Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Carbuncle]

2 minutes ago, pattricia said:

This is just a general enquiry. Does a person in good health, in their fifties, who has already had two jabs of the Corona vaccine still have to have the booster jab.? Or is the booster just for older people ?

Nobody has to have the booster. It is however available to healthy people in their fifties, amongst others, from six months after their second jab.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-booster-vaccine/

[pattricia]

Just now, Carbuncle said:

Nobody has to have the booster. It is however available to healthy people in their fifties, amongst others, from six months after their second jab.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-booster-vaccine/

Thank you for your quick reply ! 

[Tony]

7 minutes ago, pattricia said:

This is just a general enquiry. Does a person in good health, in their fifties, who has already had two jabs of the Corona vaccine still have to have the booster jab.? Or is the booster just for older people ?

Tell your gran that yes, she should have it.  

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

 

Again, you do know how covid works and what it does? its different to flu, flu is respiratory, whereas covid can affect every organ in your body including heart and brain, if you have a dodgy ticker, covid can put additional stress on it which may give you a heart attack, so you died of a heart attack, BUT if you were found to have had covid 28 days preceeding they know covid probably played a part.

As does flu.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/heartdisease.htm

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

To my mind the biggest lesson that can be learned is that the preceding years of lack of funding to essential services,particularly health care caused deaths and subsequent extraordinary spending from the magic money tree that apparently did not exist.

Interesting how there has never been talk of increasing capacity of services to give more headroom to stop any overwhelming of services.

 

Instead it’s restrictions being used to prevent existing capacity being overwhelmed.

[tinfoilhat]

8 minutes ago, makapaka said:

 

Interesting how there has never been talk of increasing capacity of services to give more headroom to stop any overwhelming of services.

 

Instead it’s restrictions being used to prevent existing capacity being overwhelmed.

This. Not even talked about, ever. A better healthcare system wouldn't just help covid, it would just help.

[Carbuncle]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

This. Not even talked about, ever. A better healthcare system wouldn't just help covid, it would just help.

No, I don't think that is right. Capacity is surely "the" topic of conversation with the NHS. Sometimes it is framed as "growing waiting lists for routine operations" which is really code for the NHS does not have the capacity to do a year's work in a year. Sometimes it is framed as "missed waiting time targets in A&E" which is again code for a lack of capacity to cope with the surges in demand that A&E is subject to. Sometimes it is framed as the "NHS winter crisis" which is again code for a lack of capacity to cope with the seasonal surge of demand that occurs each winter. Come to think of it, you're right, capacity is never talked about ... except in words that suggest it is about something else.

 

Labour always want to talk about capacity issues in the NHS, the Conservatives tend to want to move the conversation to something else although last election round the Conservatives told us they were going to build a bunch more "new hospitals". Of course a "new hospital" turns out not to be quite the same as a new hospital.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Longcol]

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

 

Interesting how there has never been talk of increasing capacity of services to give more headroom to stop any overwhelming of services.

 

Instead it’s restrictions being used to prevent existing capacity being overwhelmed.

On the "lost" part one thread I'm pretty sure I linked to some stats showing the decline in general and acute beds in the NHS over the last 10 years or so.

 

Read this article the other day;

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58849024

 

Scroll down three or four screens to the chart showing hospital beds per 100,000 population - we've less than a third the bedspaces  of Germany, less than half those of France, and less than both Italy and Spain.  Combined with being 39,000 vacancies for nurses, capacity is tight at the best of times.

 

 

[FoxLady]

21 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Cause of death is generally a bit of a mess. I think there are 'default' causes of death  which are often filled in when there is nothing obvious ( maybe heart failure?). 

My relative, who died in January this year, had two causes shown on the (very overdue) death certificate :

 

i) Advanced tumour of the oral cavity

and

ii) Advanced Dementia 

 

 

 

She didn't have dementia, let alone 'advanced'.

 

[Carbuncle]

18 hours ago, FoxLady said:

My relative, who died in January this year, had two causes shown on the (very overdue) death certificate :

 

i) Advanced tumour of the oral cavity

and

ii) Advanced Dementia 

 

 

Through the wonders of wikipedia, I found the following study on New York doctors' opinions of recorded causes of death ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664206/pdf/PCD-10-E76.pdf ).

 

Here is the summary of results from the paper's abstract:

 

"A total of 521 residents from 38 residency programs participated (program response rate, 54%). We identified 178
(34%) high-volume respondents. Only 33.3% of all respondents and 22.7% of high-volume residents believed that
cause-of-death reporting is accurate. Of all respondents, 48.6% had knowingly reported an inaccurate cause of death;
58.4% of high-volume residents had done so. Of respondents who indicated they reported an inaccurate cause, 76.8%
said the system would not accept the correct cause, 40.5% said admitting office personnel instructed them to “put
something else,” and 30.7% said the medical examiner instructed them to do so; 64.6% cited cardiovascular disease as
the most frequent diagnosis inaccurately reported."

 

It's this kind of thing that makes me feel cause of death is a bit of a mess. For some purposes, I prefer the more objective 'death within 28 days of a positive covid test' even though I would acknowledge it has its drawbacks.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Carbuncle

[The_DADDY]

Excellent question... 

 

Of course the answer is a simple one. 

It's a Scamdemic and not a legit pandemic.