Anyone else supporting the Govt.?

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I believe the capacity is there - getting people tested is not all a government responsibility (e.g. you find some testing places - very few turn up, and postal tests not returned).  I agree it has been badly handled as to 'publicity'.

Sorry but even Barclay was called out on this as recently as last night on QT, quoting 100k tests but then confirming ~70k people i.e. multiple tests on the same people

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't agree - there were many projections and thankfully we have not come near the worst (which were way into in six figures).  I believe because we record deaths as Covid where there are 'multiple possible causes' - and record deaths in care homes etc (which neither the Italians or Spanish do apparently) it is hard to compare.  Fact is - there have been a lot of deaths - and that is a tragedy, but it is not clear to me that other than starting the locking down a bit earlier - and perhaps even more tightly, how this could have been lowered.

The idea that we could simply have  'close the borders' is not viable - and I don't think that the treatment people have received once ill and in hospital has been lacking either (though I'm sure they have been on a learning curve). 

Our population is very dense, we have very high risk practices (high density housing and public transport etc,) and frankly an old, not very healthy and vulnerable population - with a lot of 'underlying' conditions.

It is a tragedy, but was going to happen to some degree (as it did in Italy, Belgium and Spain) - but 'a scandal' it is not.

I'm not necessarily surprised, death is a horrible subject and the government have done a great job of trying to re-write history on this (and somehow the media have allowed it). But the fact is, I saw it stated live on the TV, that they modeled the outcome based on the original tactic for herd immunity and it returned deaths in the range 250,000 to 500,000. They used those numbers to justify the change in tactic to one of lockdown where the same model predicted ~20k deaths.

All the factors you mention, whilst valid, would have been parameterised and calibrated as part of the modelling - or at least it should have been.

This has nothing to do with death rates in other countries, it's all about here in the UK and what the government predicted would happen, the measures they took as a result, and the fact that they missed it by a mile. They were acting on very poor data, it is a scandal and when the public enquiry unravels the truth it will be revealed for just that!

12 minutes ago, oowee said:

Generous yes, stunning in it's naivety maybe. Set at a level that encourged exploitation in favour of protecting the workforce and unsustainable for the likely period of need. 

I don't disagree but I honestly believe is was naive but for forgivable reasons, mostly - they needed to act fast, even if a function of having sat on their hands originally.

To what degree the dodgy modelling played a part in this is anyone's guess at this stage.

[AVB]

33 minutes ago, oowee said:

Because there was a shortage of ppe day one, there was a call for ventilator production too late, the lock down plan was poorly thought through and lacked detail and had immediate enforcement difficulties (now high court cases against the enforcement orders), the immediate plan was herd immmunity and abandoned after a few days, I cant't see any prep for care homes, the testing infrastructure was not in place. All of this stuff is a known given the simulation exercises and modeling, there is a distinct and obvious lack of experience in the leadership that has allowed the UK to fail. 

Sorry I didn’t make my question clear. I meant why do you think the Government acted in the way it did (or didn’t)? Do you think it was a conscious decision to ignore the results of the previous exercises or if not why not? 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

i.e. multiple tests on the same people

......... which surely indicates the 'capacity' is there?  I fully agree the spin and 'story' has been very badly done, but I think that the implementation of what we can call 'a substantial testing capability' has been an achievement.

 

4 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

They used those numbers to justify the change in tactic to one of lockdown where the same model predicted ~20k deaths.

I think (and I may be wrong on this) that they said they hoped below 20K deaths.  Clearly that hasn't been met, but we are still a long case from the 250-500K figures.  So - maybe the model ws wrong?  Maybe the data was wrong?  We are largely in uncharted waters, so I still don't see it as 'a scandal'.  I do see it as a tragedy (as I'm sure we all do).

[Walker570]

As admitted publicly by one scientist they are all GUESSING !!!

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, AVB said:

Sorry I didn’t make my question clear. I meant why do you think the Government acted in the way it did (or didn’t)? Do you think it was a conscious decision to ignore the results of the previous exercises or if not why not? 

Ahhh got you. A new administration with Brexit on it's mind and trying to work out how to deliver it's agenda is suddenly faced with this threat and it gets parked in the too hard to deal with, its not my problem box. Yes I think it was a conscious decision to ignore the threat, there were certainly plenty of warnings, including from some members of the covid panel that are no longer represented.

Add to that the inertia of 'large government' and the unwillingness to inflict pain on the public at a time when the government is riding high. Easier to let the public feel the pain and then they will be happy with anything you want to throw at them. 

[motty]

2 hours ago, toontastic said:

the NHS isn't underfunded. It's wasteful and abused. 

I couldn't agree more!

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, motty said:

I couldn't agree more!

I think you are right ..... but;

• the abuse is by the NHS's 'customers' abusing a 'free facility' - not the direct fault of the NHS who are in a difficult position on 'turning people way'
• and the waste is what you always seem to get from a large 'centralised' organisation - compounded by bad decisions in the past on funding (such as PFI comittments). 

Unfortunately - at the front line of nurses, medical staff, cleaners, caterers, buildings maintenance people - these combined manifest themselves as a 'shortage of funds to suit the demand' ....... hence the underfunded.  Note that this interpretation is much encouraged by some left wing elements.

A good part of the blame for the waste can be laid at the misguided use of the very expensive PFI (Private Finance Initiative) whereby the NHS effectively leases hospitals at exorbitant cost, which was done (mainly by Gordon Brown) in order to 'hide' spending and borrowing since PFI payments liabilities don't count in the same way as borrowing.

[Retsdon]

This is what a good job looks like.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/the-coronavirus-slayer-how-keralas-rock-star-health-minister-helped-save-it-from-covid-19

[Gordon R]

Quote

the NHS isn't underfunded. It's wasteful and abused. 

I will add my agreement to this. The NHS needs better managers, who comprehend that they are dealing with taxpayers money. Cut out the waste, the inflated prices for everyday items, top heavy management, too many overseas people abusing our scheme, too much out-sourcing with the resultant lowering of standards, get rid of the "bank" system. The funding is already there, but badly administered.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

This is what a good job looks like.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/the-coronavirus-slayer-how-keralas-rock-star-health-minister-helped-save-it-from-covid-19

1. I don't know what Kerala's international air traffic passenger count is, but the UK's is about 400,000  - A DAY (circa 155 MILLION a year)
2. The virus was (fairly probably in December or earlier) already here by the time China announced they had it

So - I'm glad Kerala has it controlled .......... but it isn't even vaguely comparable to the UK.

Edited May 15, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[Raja Clavata]

55 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

......... which surely indicates the 'capacity' is there?  I fully agree the spin and 'story' has been very badly done, but I think that the implementation of what we can call 'a substantial testing capability' has been an achievement.

Yes but I don't readily know why you'd test the same person more than once in a day.

I think (and I may be wrong on this) that they said they hoped below 20K deaths.  Clearly that hasn't been met, but we are still a long case from the 250-500K figures.  So - maybe the model ws wrong?  Maybe the data was wrong?  We are largely in uncharted waters, so I still don't see it as 'a scandal'.  I do see it as a tragedy (as I'm sure we all do).

To be honest the information on this is well documented online and various links have been posted on this forum covering it, but anyway...

Re: NHS - I think it's a multi-factorial problem (to state the obvious) - I agree with the points listed but would add that if everyone paid their way to fund the NHS then by definition it would / could be in a better state. That's not to say it would be any less abused and inefficient.

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on - well, ok, at least hope we all agree on, is what a globally iconic institution the NHS is, much of the world views it with envy and rightly so.

The topic of Kerala reminds me that one of the chics in my cycling club was suggesting many of the countries who faired well out of COVID are run by women, I haven't checked but suspect she may well be right...

[JohnfromUK]

15 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on - well, ok, at least hope we all agree on, is what a globally iconic institution the NHS is, much of the world views it with envy and rightly so.

I do agree - but I don't think the 'rest of the world' truly appreciate the cost ........ roughly 3 x the defence budget or the 3 x education budget.

I don't know why they were testing twice either.  Who in their right minds would go twice?  I understand the swabbing procedure isn't particularly pleasant.

Kerala is a region (and one I had never heard of).  Would Mrs Thatcher (as our only female PM) have managed it better?  I don't know.

Edited May 15, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[Retsdon]

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

much of the world views it with envy and rightly so.

What about the Germans, or the French? Or the Dutch?  Or the Swedes or Norwegians? Otherwise you're not comparing apples with apples. Of course the Nigerians or the Americans are envious...

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Retsdon said:

What about the Germans, or the French? Or the Dutch?  Or the Swedes or Norwegians? Otherwise you're not comparing apples with apples. Of course the Nigerians or the Americans are envious...

I'm not going to list all of the countries nor justify the comment further, there are very few things I view in black and white - this is one of them. Feel free to cite three more in order to balance out the point you were making though 👍

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Kerala is a region (and one I had never heard of).  Would Mrs Thatcher (as our only female PM) have managed it better?  I don't know.

I know you don't travel abroad but a beautiful part of the world, fascinating history based on it's location and colonisation, I have numerous friends and colleagues from there (they are Christian and their surnames are usually clues - John, George etc.)

Re: Maggie - yeah, who knows.

[Retsdon]

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm not going to list all of the countries nor justify the comment further, there are very few things I view in black and white - this is one of them. Feel free to cite three more in order to balance out the point you were making though 👍

 

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

A couple of years out of date, but good enough. In healthcare, the UK fares on the better side of average for all EU and ECC countries  but it's not exceptional.

Anyway, just think, after next year we'll be on our own and there won't be any of these pesky comparative stats to dilute the message.... Happy days

[Raja Clavata]

Still not biting 😜 

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

 

Anyway, just think, after next year we'll be on our own and there won't be any of these pesky comparative stats to dilute the message.... Happy days

Indeed. 🙂

[SpringDon]

People in the uk like to think the nhs is the envy of the world but only around 10 other countries have roughly comparable systems. Some people instantly sneer that the alternative is a American model but this is a classic straw man argument. No one in the right mind would copy the American system (even America if they were given another chance). Why not have an insurance based system like germany’s, where state involvement is limited to ensuring everybody has access to the insurance?

People applaud health workers, not the nhs.

[Cawdor118]

9 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Nah! A lot of the time people don’t ascend the “greasy pole” because they will not **** or creep around their bosses, will not sell out and shun patronage earned from “services rendered”........nothing to do with competence or laziness.......more to do with morals and self respect!

Absolute nonsense and the reason you will be doomed to eternal bitterness. I do hope one day people like you will grow up and see the world for what it is... a b***h. Stop blaming everyone else for your deficiencies. 

If you don't have the attributes to be a manager, fine. Just don't cry about the people who want to try. 

 

 

[lancer425]

Not 100% on topic here, but re the NHS funding . I am not convinced the NHS trusts and the Management of them is being done as economically as it could be.  I do not understand the running of such things. But would the NHS not be able to save money if it reverted back to pre trust days. ?

[DoolinDalton]

4 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Not 100% on topic here, but re the NHS funding . I am not convinced the NHS trusts and the Management of them is being done as economically as it could be.  I do not understand the running of such things. But would the NHS not be able to save money if it reverted back to pre trust days. ?

I reckon, imho, that the NHS would save a substantial amount of money, IF they stopped paying the Trust CEO's, etc, huge salaries!  I'd rather see the money go to nurses, cleaners, porters, all health workers, etc, to show that they are VALUED in their work.  I know that Doctors, in all of their different roles, do work VERY hard...and they are rightly rewarded for their dedication and experience. Three of my customers are doctors...2 GP's and an anaesthetist, who will go out of their way to make sure myself and my family are ok, regarding medical problems.  Lots of money, huge houses....but from my point of view, they never seem to have the time to enjoy 'the fruits of their labour' as they are at the surgery (GP's) 10 hours a day....and the anaesthetist, when not in theatre, also does pain relief clinics with cancer patients.  Not an enviable job!  My niece, an ICU nurse, told me of the decisions that doctors have to make daily, regarding who gets ICU treatment and who, unfortunately doesn't!  Can you imagine having all that on your mind when you go home at night!  Anyway, whatever job they do in the NHS (and privately, of course) they deserve our utmost respect, as they are ultimately taking care of us all.  Back to the topic....I think that Boris et al are doing what they can with the tools (that includes the 'advisors' they have....BUT the figures for CV deaths are, imo, incorrect...as, I read recently, if anyone, even a single person, in a care home, is tested positive for CV19, then it is assumed (and therefore recorded) that ALL  residents of that home will be positive for CV19.   Therefore, anyone dying in said care home, will be recorded as having died of CV19, regardless of them having (died from) dementia, cancer, pneumonia, etc.  It makes me wonder why the figures are manipulated?    

[Retsdon]

4 hours ago, DoolinDalton said:

I reckon, imho, that the NHS would save a substantial amount of money, IF they stopped paying the Trust CEO's, etc, huge salaries!  

When the social philosophy is that everything must be  judged by its price it's hardly surprising when this spills over into public salaries.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Retsdon

[panoma1]

8 hours ago, Cawdor118 said:

Absolute nonsense and the reason you will be doomed to eternal bitterness. I do hope one day people like you will grow up and see the world for what it is... a b***h. Stop blaming everyone else for your deficiencies. 

If you don't have the attributes to be a manager, fine. Just don't cry about the people who want to try. 

 

 

It seems my description touched a nerve with you! 😆 A reality in life is some people without conscience and self respect, will tread on anyone and do anything to “get up the greasy pole”.....if the cap fits? As they say! 😂 

[Raja Clavata]

9 hours ago, Cawdor118 said:

Absolute nonsense and the reason you will be doomed to eternal bitterness. I do hope one day people like you will grow up and see the world for what it is... a b***h. Stop blaming everyone else for your deficiencies. 

If you don't have the attributes to be a manager, fine. Just don't cry about the people who want to try. 

 

 

You are pushing against a closed door mate. You'll get a standard retort.

38 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

It seems my description touched a nerve with you! 😆 A reality in life is some people without conscience and self respect, will tread on anyone and do anything to “get up the greasy pole”.....if the cap fits? As they say! 😂 

QED 🙂 

13 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on - well, ok, at least hope we all agree on, is what a globally iconic institution the NHS is, much of the world views it with envy and rightly so.

Whilst we're in call out mode: @Retsdon I actually added the above specifically with you in mind 😛 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, you also have to ask yourself would any of the other 3 main political parties do any better, or their representatives

Edited May 16, 2020 by oldypigeonpopper