| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Frankly I find it astonishing that people are comparing Brexit to the virus and arguing that the former is an equal, or even higher, priority - 50,000, probably more, have died and who knows how many more could do, that should be the priority while there is not a vaccine or a treatment available that greatly reduces the number of fatalities.-Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
And in the meantime businesses go under, mass unemployment so by the time any vaccine arrives Britain is ****ed...
Only one of those priorities of course is dictated by deadlines purely man-made this side of the Channel
The priority with a deadline was agreed by the public via a general election. But it’s not really a priority. Both situations need to be managed
Is this the public totally aware that a pandemic was coming or a different one? The government has the opportunity to focus on the health and economic consequences of the virus but has decided to maintain the position that it will leave the transition period as planned with or without a deal. I guess you are comfortable with that but many others think it's a fools errand.
The government could extend for a year, two, three or more and you would want another extension after that no doubt. Because the EU would be quite happy to string us along for as long as it takes for us to submit. Negotiations need deadlines, and sometimes there is no point in extending them.
With or without the pandemic the EU stance has not changed, Barnier is talking in the same tones as he was when Theresa May was floundering
EU seems determined, even at this stage, to read us like a colonial outback, subservient to them and their laws.
Which laws are so important to you that can't take a back seat to managing the health and economic impacts of Covid without layering the impacts of ending the transition period?
Dexamethasone and remdesivir seem to help, the former greatly reducing the number of fatalities
The former can help some of those who are seriously ill. I think I remember reading about one eighth of people on a ventilator or needing oxygen. Absolutely brilliant, of course, but this is not greatly reducing fatalities or a miracle cure.
Oxford University hospitals who did the trials hailed it a breakthrough and said that if dexamethasone had been used from the start 5,000 UK patients would not have died. That's significant.
Well, they said "up to 5,000" lives could have been saved - I'm not knocking this but it's about 10%. The vast majority of deaths would still have occurred, so we need to keep our feet on the ground. It is a breakthrough, it is good news, it's not greatly reducing fatalities.
The trial was called RECOVERY, suggest you look at the data which covers over 2,000 patients and says....Dexamethasone reduced deaths by 20% in those patients that required oxygen, and 35% in those that required ventilation. If that's not significantly reducing fatalities, what is?
Not quite yet, because it has been in a clinical trial until recently so you are jumping the gun a little bit. Based on the results of the trial, it is estimated as many as 5,000 lives could have been saved if we were in a position to use the treatment earlier. That is not me knocking anyone, by the way, it was always going to take time to get treatments that were effective (and no doubt we will find treatments that are even more effective, or alternative treatments that will be effective on those people for whom dexamethasone is not effective). But, it highlights that this will save many lives globally, hopefully we will see the death rate curve dampen soon.
I recommend that you read the trial data. It conclusively states that the drug makes a big difference for those needing oxygen or on a ventilator. The trial had 2,000 where dexamethasone was added to the usual treatments for 6 days, and 4000 patients where it was not added. For those who did not need ventilation or oxygen it made no difference.
As I mentioned in an earlier post there was a 35% reduction in death rate for those on ventilators, and 20% for those on oxygen when compared to the 4,000 who did not get it
What I don't get is how they can say on one hand that there is a 35 per cent reduction in the death rate of those on ventilators and, on the other, that it saves one life in every eight of those on ventilators - the two claims are not compatible are they?
Anyway, even if it saves over a third of lives that had been being lost, I'd still say that, great news that it is, it still doesn't equate to the vaccine that would make such a difference to how the world could operate. It's more that this treatment would be one of ,hopefully, a few that would mean that we could "live" with the virus without the need for the drastic measures we've seen in the event of no vaccine being forthcoming.
They could be compatible - the 35% reduction in the death rate could be 35% reduction of the existing death rate i.e. not absolute 35% but 35% of another %age,which could equal 1 in 8 people being saved.
You can formulate that into 2 equations with 2 unknowns and demonstrate that for a given death rate that it is feasible.
Thanks for that.
That's exactly what it is. The reduction is a comparison between the dexamethasone group and the other group of patients
I think you have misunderstood me, and I take responsibility for that because I was unclear.
My point was not about the effectiveness of the drug - but the fact it is based on trials and so we are not yet at the stage where we can say it has "greatly reduced death figures". Hopefully we will see the true impact in the next few weeks.
Nobody but you is comparing one with the other. Both need to be managed
There is at least one contributor to this thread who has said that Brexit has to be a higher priority - in fact he did it a few hours before your message I'm replying to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote