Brexit!

[RoboFox]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

This isn't directed at anyone in here but this is the delusion I'm on about. 

 

The man needs insulin to live. His ability to get it is hugely affected if we leave the EU. He voted to leave. He still wants to leave even when knowing he may not get his insulin he needs. Therefore dying through lack of it because we left the EU. 

 

 

 

 

Incredible. He hates the EU more than he loves his own life.

 

"Yeah, mate. Me slipping into a coma will really show those snowflake Remoaners."

 

If this isn't radicalisation, I don't know what is. 

 

Edited 19 September 2019 by RoboFox

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'm saying that's what doctors think might happen. Doctors who supply these drugs to people I know.

 

I'm not willing to see them suffer to prove some bullshit point about the EU being an "empire". None of us will be able to get up to the moral high ground if we're not healthy enough to do so.

There's a similar argument to that in other areas too. Can be summed up in one paraphrase.

 

"Stand in the ashes of innumerable dead souls and ask the ghosts if ideology, or honour, or nation, matters. Their silence is your answer.”

 

Survival, of as many as possible, is the simplest "moral" cause.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

Do you mind me asking what life saving medication you are referring to? 

I am taking regular medication you could argue is life preserving and my wife is taking medication post cancer treatment, we haven't been told of any supply problems, I've just had my Annual review and she has recently visited her Oncologist.

I am genuinely interested. 

I'm not willing to go into it as it's not my place to do so and I know a fair few people off here in real life, so hope you can appreciate that.

 

The drugs I'm on about are in fairly widespread usage though. Glad to hear there are no supply problems for you or your wife, and hopefully it stays that way for everyone.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Wortho said:

So you are saying that should there be a no deal Brexit people in the UK will be unable to receive life saving drugs? My son also needs vital drugs so that he function. 

Is this the fault of the EU or companies within the EU? If so who would want to be part of an empire that refuses to supply these vital drugs. I think it says more about the EU than anything. 

 

Nobody, neither the EU nor companies nor anyone else will "refuse to supply these vital drugs".

 

With No Deal, the risk is that orders of vital drugs will not arrive because they get stuck in massive queues of lorries outside Dover/Calais. Or delayed due to extra Customs/product checks. Or, in some cases, will be unusable due to delays if they have to be used within a very limited period.

 

By opting for No Deal, the UK would be choosing to take the risk of that happening - a very real risk according to the UK Govt's own assessments.

 

Advance stockpiling would alleviate some of that. But not infinitely, only for a few weeks/months for non-perishable items - and some medicines simply cannot be stockpiled as they have to be used within 1-2 days or whatever.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Even as a tongue in cheek thing I can't for the life of me remember what this referred to. Even done a search on the whole old politics thread and can't find a reference, what memories it did produce though. Had forgotten how good the Toddster could be and how funny Webbo was. Also I'd hate online me irl

https://www.foxestalk.co.uk/topic/112529-politics-thread-encompassing-brexit-21-june-2017-onwards/page/74/

 

This is the one, about halfway down.

[Alf Bentley]

Just one example, @Wortho....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49153073

 

"Senior doctors have called for ''urgent clarification" of plans to supply cancer treatments in the event of a no-deal Brexit, BBC Newsnight has learned. In a letter to the prime minister, seen by Newsnight, they say a "dry run" of emergency deliveries earlier this year revealed problems in the system.

 

About one million patients in the UK receive medical radioisotopes for diagnosis or therapy each year. The Department of Health said "action is being taken to safeguard supplies". 

 

Radioisotopes are radioactive atoms that can be used against cancer and are a key component of some types of scan. Their supply chains operate on tight schedules, as the nuclear materials quickly decay and become unusable. And stockpiling supplies in advance of a potential no deal, as planned for some other medicines, is impossible".

 

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Nobody, neither the EU nor companies nor anyone else will "refuse to supply these vital drugs".

 

With No Deal, the risk is that orders of vital drugs will not arrive because they get stuck in massive queues of lorries outside Dover/Calais. Or delayed due to extra Customs/product checks. Or, in some cases, will be unusable due to delays if they have to be used within a very limited period.

 

By opting for No Deal, the UK would be choosing to take the risk of that happening - a very real risk according to the UK Govt's own assessments.

 

Advance stockpiling would alleviate some of that. But not infinitely, only for a few weeks/months for non-perishable items - and some medicines simply cannot be stockpiled as they have to be used within 1-2 days or whatever.

Ooh, now that you've presented a very real argument in response to a very real point, are you a terrorist Corbyn sympathiser?! 

[Wortho]

29 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Do you mind me asking what life saving medication you are referring to? 

I am taking regular medication you could argue is life preserving and my wife is taking medication post cancer treatment, we haven't been told of any supply problems, I've just had my Annual review and she has recently visited her Oncologist.

I am genuinely interested. 

I honestly hope that you and your wife are well. I know of the worry of looking after someone with cancer it's horrendous for both of you.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Wortho said:

So you are saying that should there be a no deal Brexit people in the UK will be unable to receive life saving drugs? My son also needs vital drugs so that he function. 

Is this the fault of the EU or companies within the EU? If so who would want to be part of an empire that refuses to supply these vital drugs. I think it says more about the EU than anything. 

This is by far your best effort for months (I presume this is meant to be in the joke thread).

[Kopfkino]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.foxestalk.co.uk/topic/112529-politics-thread-encompassing-brexit-21-june-2017-onwards/page/74/

 

This is the one, about halfway down.

 

Right. Allow me to look for some clarity here, because I really don't want to be seen to be strawmanning you in this case.

Are you suggesting that monetary value should be prioritised over the life or the long/short term good health (be it pain free, able to function as close to able-bodied as possible or whatever) of a human being in certain situations?

 

Two years on and you have managed to strawman me.

 

For the avoidance of doubt though, centrally-planned health systems require strict rationing for which NICE has to make tough decisions based on strict mathematics, the QALY measure. The choice NICE has to make is essentially the one you brought up and that's the problem. "Wrt withdrawing treatment from heart attack patients, I am not countering that it is a bad thing. I said I am not making those choices, I am not discussing what specifics deserve treating and what doesn't, I am again asking what you continue to treat". That's exactly my problem, NICE have to make these decisions because of the system we operate. Elsewhere, where healthcare is treated more as a transaction between consumer and provider, those decisions are made differently, although obviously always with a nod to money.

 

Alas your point about not having to make that choice would be nice and probably come to some degree long after we depart.

[BKLFox]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Nobody, neither the EU nor companies nor anyone else will "refuse to supply these vital drugs".

 

With No Deal, the risk is that orders of vital drugs will not arrive because they get stuck in massive queues of lorries outside Dover/Calais. Or delayed due to extra Customs/product checks. Or, in some cases, will be unusable due to delays if they have to be used within a very limited period.

 

By opting for No Deal, the UK would be choosing to take the risk of that happening - a very real risk according to the UK Govt's own assessments.

 

Advance stockpiling would alleviate some of that. But not infinitely, only for a few weeks/months for non-perishable items - and some medicines simply cannot be stockpiled as they have to be used within 1-2 days or whatever.

I'd imagine its possible for life saving drugs and those with short shelf lives could/would be flown in with immediate checks made on loading / unloading & met by medical transport & taken directly to supply depots, no?

[LiberalFox]

Isn't that the essence of social vs private healthcare? You either have to ration by cost/benefit analysis or ration by ability to pay. We actually have about the most Liberal healthcare system in the world.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I'd imagine its possible for life saving drugs and those with short shelf lives could/would be flown in with immediate checks made on loading / unloading & met by medical transport & taken directly to supply depots, no?

 

That's the plan, I believe. How reliable the plans are is another matter (see my other post in which senior doctors request "urgent clarification" of plans, due to problems revealed in the system).

 

Not exactly cheap, either, but who cares about value for the taxpayer these days? Certainly not Boris, who has effectively declared the austerity years pointless, now that he has found a whole forest of magic money trees.

 

What a state to end up in, though, if it happens? Perhaps we could also get the Red Cross to parachute in emergency supplies like they do when there's a natural disaster in the developing world....

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's the plan, I believe. How reliable the plans are is another matter (see my other post in which senior doctors request "urgent clarification" of plans, due to problems revealed in the system).

 

Not exactly cheap, either, but who cares about value for the taxpayer these days? Certainly not Boris, who has effectively declared the austerity years pointless, now that he has found a whole forest of magic money trees.

 

What a state to end up in, though, if it happens? Perhaps we could also get the Red Cross to parachute in emergency supplies like they do when there's a natural disaster in the developing world....

Ask yourself what doctors know about logistics.  

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ask yourself what doctors know about logistics.  

Why do think they won't know anything about it? 

[Rain King]

Just now, StanSP said:

Why do think they won't know anything about it? 

 

Of course they won't. Jon the Hat off Foxestalk evidently knows more.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ask yourself what doctors know about logistics.  

Do they have an obligation to "stay in their lane" when a matter arises that might compromise the well being of their patients?

 

I've heard similar arguments when their counterparts in the US argue for gun control...usually not long after dragging the sheet over the latest poor sod that was a victim of it. (Not that such sheet-dragging is having to happen on account of logistical challenges in the UK...at the present time).

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why do think they won't know anything about it? 

Mainly because those who do are very confident there will not be any problems at all.  

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, pds said:

 

Of course they won't. Jon the Hat off Foxestalk evidently knows more.

Well unlike doctors I do work for a company which moves tens of millions of products across all industries in and out if the uk every month.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Do they have an obligation to "stay in their lane" when a matter arises that might compromise the well being of their patients?

 

I've heard similar arguments when their counterparts in the US argue for gun control...usually not long after dragging the sheet over the latest poor sod that was a victim of it. (Not that such sheet-dragging is having to happen on account of logistical challenges in the UK...at the present time).

They can say what they like, but you and everyone else should then question whether they as medical professionals actually know anything about moving the medications they rely on.

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Mainly because those who do are very confident there will not be any problems at all.  

And that automatically means doctors don't know anything at all? 

 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why do think they won't know anything about it? 

I would like to think they were focussed on being the best doctors they can be rather than studying logistics.

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

And that automatically means doctors don't know anything at all? 

 

It suggests they might have other motives. And we should ask actual experts if they are right to be concerned.

Edited 19 September 2019 by Jon the Hat

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ask yourself what doctors know about logistics.  

 

Not their specialist focus, but they can presumably perceive the outcomes of systems set up by the logistics specialists - particularly when they see "a dry run of emergency deliveries"?

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't have asked for "urgent clarification of plans" due to "problems revealed in the system" .......unless, er, they had noticed some problems?

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

It suggests they might have other motives.

 

Do you mean that all senior doctors are part of the scheming Remoaner liberal elite?