Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

My wife's uncle is bed-ridden in a home following a stroke, and is also deaf, limiting his ability to interact with many people. The only pleasure he gets in life is visitors. Particularly his nieces and his dog. There's not much left for him, and visitors ease his burden. FaceTime/Zoom just aren't the same. So it's criminal for him to have visitors? Nothing about any of this is a cut-and-dried as people would like to make it out to be.

Amen. It has been discovered that the ban on visitors in nursing homes in many countries in the spring had devastating effects, including not only severe psychological problems like depression, but also deaths.



Every week is precious for many of the residents; for many it's the last year of their lives. Every visit is precious. It may be worth some risk not to nuke all of that.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

My wife's uncle is bed-ridden in a home following a stroke, and is also deaf, limiting his ability to interact with many people. The only pleasure he gets in life is visitors. Particularly his nieces and his dog. There's not much left for him, and visitors ease his burden. FaceTime/Zoom just aren't the same. So it's criminal for him to have visitors? Nothing about any of this is a cut-and-dried as people would like to make it out to be.

Yes, it is criminal to let visitors into a nursing or retirement home because it exposes the most vulnerable people to the virus. It is cut and dry. Let in visitors and one is asking for the virus to get into the home. If the virus gets in, there are going to be a lot of dead people. It is that simple.

It sucks though for the family and people in the homes. We were "lucky" that my grandmother died a few months before the pandemic. No way would she have understood why family was not visiting.

But to let people into the homes will kill those residents.

At the early stages of the pandemic, my county was one of the worst hit in NC. Looking at the number numbers one would think there were bodies in the streets. The reality is, if one looked, or could look a bit deeper, is that almost all of the deaths in my county were in two nursing homes. Just two. The other deaths could have been in other retirement homes but the numbers were so low it might not have met the reporting threshold.

Before the data was taken down, those two nursing homes were the vast majority of the deaths occurred in my county and large numbers of infections. One could see that the virus was spreading throughout the staff and residents in those two facilities. There was no stopping the virus once it got in. None.

Governor Cuomo in NY, ORDERED nursing homes to take people with, or suspected of having, the virus. It appears that 25% of the dead in NY state were in nursing homes infected by his orders. This was well report in the Wall Street Journal when he made the order and when he finally stopped the madness. A few other states did the same thing but I have never seen any details.

The one thing we have known about this virus since it hit Italy was to keep it away from old people, especially if they have underlying conditions. Otherwise, they are going to die in large numbers. And that has already happened too many times

Later,
Dan

[Dsanduril]

Just as with everything else in life, there are ways to manage risk. Certainly I don't want my wife's uncle to die in bed alone and unvisited. And even more I don't want anyone visiting him to be responsible for an infection that results in the death of someone else's uncle.

But risk management is quite feasible, and if more people would actually pay attention to methods used to reduce risk rather than the all-or-nothing approach then we might get somewhere. The "absolutely no..." approach leads to unrest, cheating, and other forms of getting around the restriction that may increase the risk beyond that created by an informed, managed-risk approach.

If you look at the statistics from multiple countries, in the UK the one glaring thing that stands out is staff that work at more than one home. Some places have a dedicated staff, some have more temporary or roving staff, and staff that work at multiple facilities were 4 times more likely to test positive. In the US homes that already had citations for deficiencies in infection control were more likely to have covid outbreaks than homes with no previous deficiencies. Both of those are examples of poor risk management and risk management policies that pre-date covid.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

........."The minutes of SAGE [the scientific advisory group to government] record that shortly before the lockdown, the behavioral scientists (in the government’s advisory panel) advised against the use of coercive powers. Citizens should be treated as rational actors, taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk. Government did not act on that advice. Driven by the public panic and the general demand for action it opted for a course that it believed would make it popular – it chose – coercion."
................

The emphasised section certainly put a smile on my face this morning!

I haven't much of this in real life. OK to be fair maybe it applies to some 60 or 70 % of the population but forget it for the rest!

And if you expand the concept to include "behaving in a personal manner that is beneficial to the community", then the numbers plummet rapidly.

It seems to me in general that small socially distanced rural communities are good at socially responsible behaviour whereas those in the crowded cities aren't. Where do most citizens live...

I wonder what the same behavioural scientists say about government sponsored law and order in general.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The emphasised section certainly put a smile on my face this morning!

I haven't much of this in real life. OK to be fair maybe it applies to some 60 or 70 % of the population but forget it for the rest!

And if you expand the concept to include "behaving in a personal manner that is beneficial to the community", then the numbers plummet rapidly.

It seems to me in general that small socially distanced rural communities are good at socially responsible behaviour whereas those in the crowded cities aren't. Where do most citizens live...

I wonder what the same behavioural scientists say about government sponsored law and order in general.

I am merely reported what was said.


But social responsibility exists also in cities. Not all "mean streets".

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am merely reported what was said.


But social responsibility exists also in cities. Not all "mean streets".

Yes, it was understood you were only reporting the report

And yes, many good folk in cities and when it comes to muggers or bank robbers, most areas are safe and remain so.

Unfortunately as it relates to this thread, the virus is both invisible and spreads rapidly wherever the infected travel.

One bad apple etc.

This 'second wave' looked OK for awhile the death rates remained low but as you have said, it is trending in the wrong direction ATM.

I suppose the next hope is for one of the many vaccine trails to prove effective!

[TeddyDiver]

Using masks could be so beneficial that other measures are not really needed? https://link.springer.com/article/10...InhrbR7EhZ0QqE

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The emphasised section certainly put a smile on my face this morning!

I haven't much of this in real life. OK to be fair maybe it applies to some 60 or 70 % of the population but forget it for the rest!

And if you expand the concept to include "behaving in a personal manner that is beneficial to the community", then the numbers plummet rapidly.

It seems to me in general that small socially distanced rural communities are good at socially responsible behaviour whereas those in the crowded cities aren't. Where do most citizens live...

I wonder what the same behavioural scientists say about government sponsored law and order in general.

I had a similar thought about the word "personal" -- people are managing risks not just for themselves, but for each other right?

Nevertheless, I thought the quote was striking -- science vs. politics in just the kind of way I have been imagining.


Concerning rural communities -- one would think that it would be far easier to manage the pandemic in such. But at the moment, the most thinly populated and rural states in the U.S. are having the worst outbreaks we've seen so far -- N. Dakota and Montana with infection rates never seen as far as I know in Europe. Montana at 751 today on a seven day rolling average, and still increasing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Using masks could be so beneficial that other measures are not really needed? https://link.springer.com/article/10...InhrbR7EhZ0QqE

There is a lot of controversy about how effective masks are. Some of the science says it's not very effective or not effective at all. And an example: Poland has had quite strict masking rules -- required continuously in shops and public transport since March and required even on the street since a few weeks ago. Has apparently not damped the explosion of cases they have had in the mean time.

Meanwhile no one wears masks in Finland except in airports and there has been no increase in cases (SO FAR).

So it's not obvious that masking is a silver bullet.

However -- masking is such a low cost measure (not NO cost*) compared to others, I think it's one thing worth doing and perhaps even mandating, just in case it really is as effective as some claim. I am wearing masks a lot (although I had COVID in January and am probably still immune) and not only when it's required.

* Masking is not NO cost. It's very hard on people with breathing difficulties, and devastating for deaf or semi-deaf people who need to see your lips. It's bad for social interactions. But it beats the living hell out of unemployment or lockdown, so if masking can help us avoid those things, then it's no doubt worth it.

[Sos]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

(although I had COVID in January and am probably still immune) .

Immunity seems to fade fairly quickly according to this report.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sos

Immunity seems to fade fairly quickly according to this report.

That's why I don't take any chances. I had a severe case, however, and at least according to my doctor, it is very unlikely that I will catch it again this year. He said there are vanishingly few documented cases of true reinfection for those who had sympomatic cases.

[GordMay]

Listen to CBC Radio's podcast, “The Dose”
What have we learned about COVID-19 to keep my elderly loved one safe in long-term care this time around?
Although the majority of people recently infected with COVID-19 have been younger adults, the virus has already made its way back into long-term care and retirement homes, with about 100 active outbreaks and counting across Canada. Dr. Samir Sinha, director of geriatrics at Sinai Health and University Health Network in Toronto, returns to "The Dose" with guidance on how we can use what we've learned about COVID-19 to keep our elderly loved ones safe while cases continue to rise outside the walls of long-term care homes
The Dose ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcas...is-time-around

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...............
Concerning rural communities -- one would think that it would be far easier to manage the pandemic in such. But at the moment, the most thinly populated and rural states in the U.S. are having the worst outbreaks we've seen so far -- N. Dakota and Montana with infection rates never seen as far as I know in Europe. Montana at 751 today on a seven day rolling average, and still increasing.

Maybe the USA is a special case!
Or maybe Australia is a special case!
ATM, they are poles apart so I dunno what's normal any more!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is a lot of controversy about how effective masks are. Some of the science says it's not very effective or not effective at all...
...So it's not obvious that masking is a silver bullet ...
However -- masking is such a low cost measure (not NO cost*) compared to others, I think it's one thing worth doing and perhaps even mandating, just in case it really is as effective as some claim.
... so if masking can help us avoid those things, then it's no doubt worth it.

These observations are not "balanced" commentary.

While there is hazard in overstating the evidence, using the scientific (theoretical) “uncertainty” is (in any issue), both, irresponsible and dangerous!

There is very little controversy, over the efficacy of face coverings.
Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.

Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person, whether they have symptoms, or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission, when worn by a person who is infected.
Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive ‘Do it all!’ approach including: physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, improving ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.

See my comments regarding 'scientific uncertainty', in post #232 “The dangers of overconfident experts” ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3264085

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

. . . so I dunno what's normal any more!

You and me both, brother . . .