The NHS (National Health Service) Thread

[Mark_w]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

It wasn't. 

I mean the total death toll here was higher than almost every other individual European country. As a proportion of our population the story is slightly better but still worse than the majority. We locked down way too late, and then we paid people to spread the virus.

[bovril]

Just now, Mark_w said:

I mean the total death toll here was higher than almost every other individual European country. As a proportion of our population the story is slightly better but still worse than the majority. We locked down way too late, and then we paid people to spread the virus.

Per capita the death toll here was somewhere in the middle of Europe and there anyway are many factors at play other than just government decisions. I agree the first lock down was late and by that time there was probably little point locking down anyway.

 

I actually think the handling of the pandemic from early 2021 onwards was one of the better things the Conservatives did over the last 14 years.

[Mark_w]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Per capita the death toll here was somewhere in the middle of Europe and there anyway are many factors at play other than just government decisions. I agree the first lock down was late and by that time there was probably little point locking down anyway.

 

I actually think the handling of the pandemic from early 2021 onwards was one of the better things the Conservatives did over the last 14 years.

I'd say complete mismanagement for the entire first year is quite important really.

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

I'd say complete mismanagement for the entire first year is quite important really.

Yes but more understandable.

 

I think it's very difficult to gauge whether different decisions from the government could've lead to better outcomes. One thing I'd say is that so many European countries having such long and severe lockdowns (even schools ffs) is a failure in itself.

[dsr-burnley]

11 hours ago, Mark_w said:

I mean the total death toll here was higher than almost every other individual European country. As a proportion of our population the story is slightly better but still worse than the majority. We locked down way too late, and then we paid people to spread the virus.

The problem with locking down sooner would have been that that was flying in the face of the advice from SAGE.  It would have been politically impossible to lock down before SAGE said it was the right thing to do.

[FoxyPV]

The Eat Out scheme was a disaster

[Parafox]

41 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

The Eat Out scheme was a disaster

 

Couldn't you get a table? 

 

 

 

 

I do know what you mean, though. And I do wonder if it was seen as a win-win for the Gov as it was meant to help a struggling hospitality sector but maybe they thought it would also increase herd immunity.

Edited 20 July 2024 by Parafox

[Paninistickers]

On 19/07/2024 at 14:15, Mark_w said:

I mean the total death toll here was higher than almost every other individual European country. As a proportion of our population the story is slightly better but still worse than the majority. We locked down way too late, and then we paid people to spread the virus.

So that's got nothing to do with the appalling health, physique, lifestyle and diet many people in the UK have compared with other European countries? 

 

 

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

So that's got nothing to do with the appalling health, physique, lifestyle and diet many people in the UK have compared with other European countries? 

 

 

 

The only word in that sentence I would consider generally comparable is "diet".

 

There are plenty of overweight, obese, lazy, unfit, diabetic, respiratory and cardiac illness sufferers, alcohol and tobacco users in central European countries.

[Paninistickers]

51 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

The Eat Out scheme was a disaster

I enjoyed it. So did the kids. And all the people I saw out at the same time were enjoying it too. 

 

And, much as I despised the concept of a forced, mass house arrest....personally, I absolutely enjoyed being paid 20 grand a year to chill. 

[Paninistickers]

2 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

The only word in that sentence I would consider generally comparable is "diet".

 

There are plenty of overweight, obese, lazy, unfit, diabetic, respiratory and cardiac illness sufferers, alcohol and tobacco users in central European countries.

True. Fair point. 

 

Maybe they didn't count car accidents and heart attacks and strokes and cancer as COVID though,.like we did. 

[Parafox]

12 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

True. Fair point. 

 

Maybe they didn't count car accidents and heart attacks and strokes and cancer as COVID though,.like we did. 

 

And that was bizarre in the extreme. I still don't understand how, if your certified cause of death was from a non-covid event such as you mention, but you tested positive at post-mortem, how is that related?

Edited 20 July 2024 by Parafox

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

tested positive at post-mortem

Not even post mortem. 

 

It was tested positive at any time in the previous 30 days to death counted as a COVID death. 

 

If we applied that same 30 day formula to the common cold, I'd estimate an easy half of the 700k deaths a year would be down to

 a.runny nose

[Parafox]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Not even post mortem. 

 

It was tested positive at any time in the previous 30 days to death counted as a COVID death. 

 

If we applied that same 30 day formula to the common cold, I'd estimate an easy half of the 700k deaths a year would be down to

 a.runny nose

 

I have since found this:

 

"There is a huge range of pre-existing conditions that can be listed on the death certificate, from heart disease and cancers, to obesity and heart arrhythmias. For the more than 140,000 deaths that were due to COVID-19, it has been determined that COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, as opposed to one of these pre-existing conditions.

To conclude

We distinguish between deaths that are “due to COVID-19” and those “involving COVID-19” to provide the most comprehensive information on the impact of the disease on mortality. More than 140,000 deaths have been due to COVID-19, meaning that it has been determined as the underlying cause. To exclude individuals with any pre-existing conditions from this figure greatly understates the number of people who died from COVID-19 and who might well still be alive had the pandemic not occurred".

 

So what they're saying is that, although the deceased had a pre-existing condition, they died from Covid where otherwise they might have survived had Covid not happened. That still doesn't explain the figure included from traumatic deaths

Edited 20 July 2024 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

To be honest, Covid killed indirectly through diverting more resources away from other fatal conditions than any novel condition for a rather long time, so there's a rather clear element of culpability there.

 

And personally I can't quite understand the conspracist argument about Covid not actually being that bad for (among others) that reason; what exactly would the reason be to let a great many people die of heart conditions, cancers etc if Covid wasn't that problematic, unless the entire NHS corps suddenly decided to be either ignorant, doormats or straight sadistic? (Which quite frankly is horrible libel against decent people.)

Edited 20 July 2024 by leicsmac

[Paninistickers]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To be honest, Covid killed indirectly through diverting more resources away from other fatal conditions than any novel condition for a rather long time, so there's a rather clear element of culpability there.

 

And personally I can't quite understand the conspracist argument about Covid not actually being that bad for (among others) that reason; what exactly would the reason be to let a great many people die of heart conditions, cancers etc if Covid wasn't that problematic, unless the entire NHS corps suddenly decided to be either ignorant, doormats or straight sadistic? (Which quite frankly is horrible libel against decent people.)

I largely agree..I'm no conspiracy nutter that thinks COVID didn't exist or that the vaccine was so Bill Gates could make us buy computers

 

But COVID itself knocked out the weakest of the weak and, in some unfortunate cases,.the unluckiest of the unlucky. 

 

Lockdown itself condemned thousands of cancer (and other illnesses) patients to an early grave,.who might otherwise have had years.of useful life ahead of them 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

I largely agree..I'm no conspiracy nutter that thinks COVID didn't exist or that the vaccine was so Bill Gates could make us buy computers

 

But COVID itself knocked out the weakest of the weak and, in some unfortunate cases,.the unluckiest of the unlucky. 

 

Lockdown itself condemned thousands of cancer (and other illnesses) patients to an early grave,.who might otherwise have had years.of useful life ahead of them 

 

 

And I'm going to trust that the NHS took that decision for the clear and obvious reason that not doing so would result in a much higher rate of death and suffering.

.

Unless, again, the assumption is made that practically all of the NHS decision makers and medical staff base were either incompetent or sadistic.

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And I'm going to trust that the NHS took that decision for the clear and obvious reason that not doing so would result in a much higher rate of death and suffering.

.

Unless, again, the assumption is made that practically all of the NHS decision makers and medical staff base were either incompetent or sadistic.

I disagree..

 

My guess (stress guess) There was a fear that the NHS could collapse under sheer weight of  covid admissions, risking potential social disorder.

 

In the end,.the NHS quietly tamd.discreetly made decisions to choose who lived and died. 

 

.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I disagree..

 

My guess (stress guess) There was a fear that the NHS could collapse under sheer weight of  covid admissions, risking potential social disorder.

 

In the end,.the NHS quietly tamd.discreetly made decisions to choose who lived and died. 

 

.

And I think they made the right decisions.

 

But fair enough.

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And I'm going to trust that the NHS took that decision for the clear and obvious reason that not doing so would result in a much higher rate of death and suffering.

.

Unless, again, the assumption is made that practically all of the NHS decision makers and medical staff base were either incompetent or sadistic.

Those aren't the only choices.  What about the possibility that on day one of the pandemic, the NHS decision makers and staff didn't know all there was to know about covid and had to make guesses based on limited knowledge?

 

There's no doubt that the decision makers were too slow to spot that children neither suffered from covid nor carried it, to any significant degree, which would have saved them 1 year of schooling at least.  But, for example, it was reported that during 2020-21 there were more than 50,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than expected.  But that came later.  When the virus started, no-one knew what it would do and to claim that the people making the decision were incompetent, is unfair.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Those aren't the only choices.  What about the possibility that on day one of the pandemic, the NHS decision makers and staff didn't know all there was to know about covid and had to make guesses based on limited knowledge?

 

There's no doubt that the decision makers were too slow to spot that children neither suffered from covid nor carried it, to any significant degree, which would have saved them 1 year of schooling at least.  But, for example, it was reported that during 2020-21 there were more than 50,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than expected.  But that came later.  When the virus started, no-one knew what it would do and to claim that the people making the decision were incompetent, is unfair.

I emphatically agree with the bolded and the general gist of the post.

 

But what those who imply that Covid wasn't as great a threat as required the measures that were taken are also implying exactly that; that the people making the decisions and other NHS staff were either incompetent enough not to realise that the virus wasn't that much of a threat and hitch themselves en masse to that idea through thought and action throughout the whole crisis, or sadistic enough to join "Them" (whoever "They" are) en masse in a decision to mess up the UK and the world for nefarious purposes by deliberately misrepresenting the level of threat the Covid virus presented.

[dsr-burnley]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I emphatically agree with the bolded and the general gist of the post.

 

But what those who imply that Covid wasn't as great a threat as required the measures that were taken are also implying exactly that; that the people making the decisions and other NHS staff were either incompetent enough not to realise that the virus wasn't that much of a threat and hitch themselves en masse to that idea through thought and action throughout the whole crisis, or sadistic enough to join "Them" (whoever "They" are) en masse in a decision to mess up the UK and the world for nefarious purposes by deliberately misrepresenting the level of threat the Covid virus presented.

I don't see why the NHS staff would share the blame.  What's the average nurse supposed to do - refuse to treat covid patients and insist on treating cancer patients instead?

 

One of the things people in power have to do is make decisions that will kill people.  When it comes to stuff like this, or any other medical provision, or war, or even pensions and housing, they are going to make decisions that will cause the death of someone who would have lived with a different decision.  They can't save every life, they have to make the decision one way or the other.  What it seemed to me was that they were more or less solely concerned with covid to the exclusion of all else, and the "value" of the deaths they saved by the covid decisions were exceeded by the "value" of those lost.  I wouldn't perhaps stretch ti to "incompetent", but I have no doubt that they should have done better in the second year of the pandemic.

[Tommy G]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And I'm going to trust that the NHS took that decision for the clear and obvious reason that not doing so would result in a much higher rate of death and suffering.

.

Unless, again, the assumption is made that practically all of the NHS decision makers and medical staff base were either incompetent or sadistic.

The government took that decision by the way not the NHS, they aren’t decision makers in the covid scenario. 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't see why the NHS staff would share the blame.  What's the average nurse supposed to do - refuse to treat covid patients and insist on treating cancer patients instead?

 

One of the things people in power have to do is make decisions that will kill people.  When it comes to stuff like this, or any other medical provision, or war, or even pensions and housing, they are going to make decisions that will cause the death of someone who would have lived with a different decision.  They can't save every life, they have to make the decision one way or the other.  What it seemed to me was that they were more or less solely concerned with covid to the exclusion of all else, and the "value" of the deaths they saved by the covid decisions were exceeded by the "value" of those lost.  I wouldn't perhaps stretch ti to "incompetent", but I have no doubt that they should have done better in the second year of the pandemic.

Speaking personally, I think that accusing an entity of allowing more deaths on their watch than could have been allowed by a different action is a pretty serious accusation and is indicating incompetence from them at best and malice at worst, but that's me.

 

 

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

The government took that decision by the way not the NHS, they aren’t decision makers in the covid scenario. 

Certainly that's true.

 

However, pretty much the entirety of the NHS staff, including some very eminent professionals who would know their stuff, then made the decision themselves to agree with that decision and so either believed it was the best way forward or were browbeaten, incompetent or nefarious enough to make the wrong decision themselves.

 

Pardon me for remaking the same point, but I guess I just get tired of conspiracy theorists libelling decent doctors and scientists by directly implying they were part of a conspiracy or clueless because somehow Covid wasn't as bad as reported, and I get even more tired when they try to dress it up in "that's not what I said" deniablity when it's made clear just how ridiculous and malicious the claim is. They should be called out.

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Speaking personally, I think that accusing an entity of allowing more deaths on their watch than could have been allowed by a different action is a pretty serious accusation and is indicating incompetence from them at best and malice at worst, but that's me.

 

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly that's true.

 

However, pretty much the entirety of the NHS staff, including some very eminent professionals who would know their stuff, then made the decision themselves to agree with that decision and so either believed it was the best way forward or were browbeaten, incompetent or nefarious enough to make the wrong decision themselves.

 

Pardon me for remaking the same point, but I guess I just get tired of conspiracy theorists libelling decent doctors and scientists by directly implying they were part of a conspiracy or clueless because somehow Covid wasn't as bad as reported, and I get even more tired when they try to dress it up in "that's not what I said" deniablity when it's made clear just how ridiculous and malicious the claim is. They should be called out.

You're putting far too much on the NHS people there.  

 

1.  It's possible to make a wrong decision without being incompetent.  You can make the best decision possible with all the available evidence, and still be wrong.  

 

2,  For the average employee of any organisation, it's not their place to agree or disagree with a decision - simply to do it.  It's not possible to have an organisation of half a million medical staff each making their own decisions on whether to treat covid as the problem above all else, or whether to treat it as a problem among all others.  The organisation wouldn't function.  It would be like the consultant treating his patient's cancer one way while the nurse makes his or her own decision to treat it a different way.  It wouldn't, and couldn't, work.  The decision is made at higher level, and people at lower levels have to implement it (even if they disagree).