Skip to main content

Too little, too late?

The new restrictions announced by the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, are thought to be vital.  But is it going to be a case of too little, too late?

The prospect, unless more is done to protect those in the population who are vulnerable to the virus, is a catastrophic number of cases that would overwhelm the NHS.

An analysis by researchers at University College London,  Cambridge University, and Health Data Research, suggests that the mitigation measures already in place would not be sufficient to avoid tens of thousands of deaths caused by COVID-19 virus.



Using data on underlying conditions and age in the population, the analysis suggests that without stringent measures to prevent spread, the virus will bring about between 35,000 to 70,000 deaths.

These are shocking figures to contemplate - a picture of health services being overwhelmed, itself leading to further non-COVID-19 deaths.

The government have identified just 1.5 million with particular underlying conditions increase the risk of death from COVID-19.

However,  the study estimates that as many as 13.4 million in the UK population (20.0%) were at high risk from COVID-19, of which 13.7% were over the age of 70, and 6.3% aged 70 or younger.

What this demonstrates is that much more needs to be done to help and protect those vulnerable to the virus.  This would require a massive effort.

More thought needs to be put into how to get food and resources to these people.  Some will not be able to get food deliveries online.  This is already proving difficult with supermarket websites difficult to access and delivery slots unavailable.

The government must act to ensure adequate food supplies to shops and people. Merely leaving this to the supermarkets isn't going to work.   There has to be more stringent rationing to ensure fairness in distributions and access.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno