‘There will be an overlap between those killed by coronavirus and those who would have died in the coming months from other causes’ SHOCK: Tom Gordon writes something good!

In Herald today, after some opening waffle and a wee dig at Swinney, we get this on putting coronavirus into perspective. All it needs are the standardised hospitality mortality rates to make it really really interesting but they’re not out yet:

In 2018, the number of deaths recorded in Scotland was 58,503.

That is a daily average of 160.

In England and Wales, the 2018 total was 541,589 and the daily average 1,484. In Northern Ireland it was 15,922 in total in 2018, with a daily average of 44.

Across the whole UK, the death total for 2018 was 616,014, a daily average of 1,688.

If you really want to stand back, global deaths are around 58m a year, an average of 150,000 every day.

As I type there have been six deaths from coronavirus in Scotland since the first was confirmed on March 13.

Over the same period, based on the daily average in 2018, there would have been around 310 deaths from cancers, 285 deaths from circulatory disease, 125 from heart disease, 74 from strokes, 137 from respiratory disease, 61 from COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], 22 from alcohol, and 48 from accidents.

That’s just in Scotland, with its average of 1,125 deaths each week.

These are a background constant, but as they are largely unreported, the new deaths from coronavirus can sound apocalyptic out of context.

Because we try to block it out, we are not used to confronting death in our midst, but it is always there in one unwelcome form or another.

Also remember that the health and other public services at risk of being swamped are not hopeless.

They are geared, for reasons of efficiency and economy, around a narrow range of circumstances.

They have evolved around routine. They can flex, but it’s difficult.

That does not mean all is lost. It means heeding the advice and minimising the strain.

As I said, this is not to diminish the gravity of coronavirus.

It will be a new cause of death and add significantly to all the others, but it is not a stand-alone phenomenon.

There will be an overlap between those killed by coronavirus and those who would have died in the coming months from other causes.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18323360.tom-gordon-death-rounds-long-coronavirus/

7 thoughts on “‘There will be an overlap between those killed by coronavirus and those who would have died in the coming months from other causes’ SHOCK: Tom Gordon writes something good!”

  1. There are six (6) cases of covid-19 virus in my town of about 3,000 inhabitants.

    All were in their 80s and 90s

    This area has one of the largest life expectancies in France.

    Looking at the death notices fixed to the windows of the undertakers, the going rate for women is 90+ and men 80+.

    Those younger are accidental deaths, or something like cancer.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. Yes, we do need to remember that disease is and deaths are just the natural cycle of life, however sad it is. But also we need to ensure as few unnecessary deaths as possible which unfortunately means not catching it (coronavirus) at the moment and not spreading it – not much is said about other infections, but you are best avoiding anything that’ll weaken your immune system too I reckon. When the vaccine comes along everyone that can should get as soon as possible, and the coronavirus will become a statistic like those above.

    Is anyone thinking how lucky we are still to be in the UK? I’m not, I think we’d have dealt with this epidemic more swiftly and with more compassionate measures, and swifter reaction to save jobs and businesses, here’s Colin Dunn’s take as the ukania propaganda machine never rests

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. Loud cheering from the BBC Scotland newsrooms! They have managed to publish a story about the QEUH being baaaaaaad. This time it was told by a consultant at the hospital, who actually named herself.

    Her concern is that the hand sanitisers at the entrance are not, in her view, adequately signed. She also feels that there should be a member of staff near the entrance reminding people to do use the hand sanitisers.

    That is the story.

    Given her status as a consultant and her willingness to identify herself, I think that she makes a valid point, which stresses the need for discipline amongst us all. However, the tenor of the piece indicates glee at there being another baaaaad story.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Quite a lot published on the significance of location of hand sanitisers in hospitals for levels of usage by visitors. From a very quick and non-expert root around the literature, I’m not sure this consultant’s point about sanitisers near the main entrance to the hospital is necessarily supported by evidence.

      For example: Hobbs et al (2016) Visitor characteristics and alcohol-based hand sanitizer (AHS) dispenser locations at the hospital entrance: Effect on visitor use rates. American Journal of Infection Control Issue 3, 258-262 https://www.healthdesign.org/knowledge-repository/visitor-characteristics-and-alcohol-based-hand-sanitizer-dispenser-locations

      These authors conclude that the placement of an AHS dispenser in a lobby location is probably the least effective in terms of patient safety. And there is other evidence that compliance with the use of hand sanitisers is highest where these are provided close to clinical settings and to patients, e.g. at entrances to wards or even by sinks within wards.

      Click to access OP-ENG-Hand_Hygiene.pdf

      Intuitively, the proximity of the AHS to the clinical setting could be more effective in ensuring ‘clean’ hands when the visitor, having passed through other public areas, finally approaches a patient.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to Contrary Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.