Jump to content

Aggy

Members
  • Content Count

    3,849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Aggy last won the day on May 7 2020

Aggy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

588 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1,296 profile views
  1. Don’t disagree. But what do you do about it? Lock down until the backlog is cleared? For comparison, 4.4m people were on a treatment waiting list in Feb 2020 pre-pandemic. That’s now 5.3m. Obviously the increase in the last year has been a lot quicker than normal, but it isn’t like we had doctors sitting round twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do in 2019. Why didn’t anyone cry for lockdown and significant restrictions when 4.4m people couldn’t get treatment, but are now doing exactly that when the number is slightly higher? We’re back into making up arbitrary number territory. The increase (in people on a waiting list) from March 2020 to now is the same as the increase from 2016-2019. So yes the increase during covid was two or three times quicker, but like I said in my initial post, even without covid we’d have had waiting lists this long by about 2023 anyway, if not sooner, even without the worst pandemic in a century. Nobody was even dreaming of locking down (or anything close to it) in 2018 and 2019 to “clear the backlog”, so why is it even being suggested now?
  2. I don’t think people in the nhs are saying the same thing you are. They’re saying hospitals might be overwhelmed if we carry on without restrictions - ie; people might not be able to get that emergency life saving treatment as there won’t be any beds left. They aren’t suggesting we lock down because someone can’t get non urgent treatment for an extra few months than they had to wait pre-covid. For me it’s about equality and fairness. If A&Es are full, it doesn’t matter whether you’re 6, 16, 36, 66 or 96 - if you’re in (for example) a bad car crash and you can’t get emergency treatment you will die. Absolutely right that we try to make sure everyone has equal chance of immediate life saving treatment. When we start talking about restrictions and lockdowns for non urgent treatment, what you’re suggesting is that people with little (or no) risk of something should have their freedoms taken away for the good of others. Now of course to an extent that is reasonable if the ‘imposition’ isn’t too much and everyone benefits. The “freedoms” to drive drunk or to smoke indoors in public places are ones that don’t particularly infringe on people’s lives when they’re taken away and which protect literally everyone - passive smoking and drink driving can kill anyone of any age. Masks in public places - not really much of an ‘imposition’ so why not. But locking down and significant restrictions like banning people from seeing their family, only allowing 6 people indoors at the same time etc etc is a massive amount of ‘freedom’ to take away for something which for the majority of the population isn’t much more than a bad cough. So we’re back to if hospitals are going to be so overwhelmed that people (all people of any age) can’t get critical life saving emergency treatment, then we need to take steps to try and ensure they can get that. Anything other than emergency critical attention is not something to be dealt with by restrictions and lockdowns, but by having a fit for purpose health service in the first place - which takes money and investment.
  3. How do you know it’s out of kilter though if you haven’t got the pre-covid figures? Ignoring that point though, waiting lists were increasing year on year before covid. Far more to do with an ever aging society and a lack of funding in healthcare. Covid has accelerated the increase, but I expect we’d have had the current waiting lengths in 2023 or so even if we hadn’t had covid. Many millions were denied treatment for many many months in 2019. We didn’t lock down then. We have for many years, especially in the winter, pushed non urgent treatment back to be able to carry out urgent surgery and have beds for critical care free. We didn’t lock down then. We’ve had nowhere near enough funding in healthcare and later life treatment/living/facilities for decades. More people seem to now be aware of it as a result of covid, but it was a mess in 2019 too and has been for years. Hospitals are close to being overwhelmed every year. People get turned away from one hospital and moved to another because there aren’t beds. This all happened in 2019. We didn’t lock down then. So is it sustainable currently? Well, it wasn’t sustainable in 2019. But unless we’re at a point where people can’t get emergency life saving treatment, then the answer isn’t lockdowns and restrictions. It’s investing properly in health and social care.
  4. I think it depends what you mean by ‘normal’. Other than that I work at home two or three days a week and save on overpriced sandwiches for lunch, I can’t say that my life is now any different than it was pre-covid. And I’m not just saying that to be argumentative, it just isn’t. I go into the office. I go to the cinema. I meet friends for food and drink. I can go on holiday now in the same way I could before (to most places that I’d likely go anyway). If I was so inclined, I could go dancing on tables in clubs in groups of as many people as I want. I can go into shops. I can even see my family inside. What do we need to get used to? I think we’re at risk of overblowing it. Yes lots of people died and the debate about whether it could have been handled differently will rumble on and on. But we’ve always had pandemics, and will continue to do so. We’ve had much worse than covid before - the Black Death wiped out half the population of Europe when it was far less densely populated than it is now, the population was significantly less humongous, and we didn’t have planes or trains or cars. We might have much worse in the future (or we might not, or not for many centuries). No doubt people were saying much the same as you after the Spanish flu and for whatever reason we haven’t had anything as bad as that for a century since. Some here and there that were bad but your reference to SARS and MERS as ample warning seems to forget that there have been similar ample warnings for ever and not all of them continue to escalate into bigger disasters year after year ad infinitum. Likewise, we had far far worse than either of those (and than covid) well before any of the factors you mention were relevant. That’s just life.
  5. I wasn’t really trying to make a point, more just asking if you had the figures. Do you not? What would be a level of admissions that’s not “too high” though if you don’t even know how many people we normally have in hospitals at this time of year?
  6. Purely out of interest, do you have the hospital admission figures this year compared to September/October in years pre-covid?
  7. Based on my experience of French cars, I’d recommend getting a train there if you do!
  8. I find discussions about which countries responded “better” extremely pointless. It’s a bit like saying Paco Domingo responded “better” to promotion than Farke because his side is 5th and Farke’s is 20th. Even if we agree whether to judge “better” on points, league position, goals scored, financial stability or something else completely, to make it a worthwhile comparison you’d have to figure out a way to balance out the difference in standard between the prem and the Andorran top flight, the different number of teams in the divisions, the money opposition clubs have compared to the promoted club, the ‘starting’ standard of the playing squads comparative to opponents before the transfer window, the standard of the training facilities compared to opponents, the attitude of the boards, the attitude/number of fans, the opponents they’ve played so far this season, the fact one has only played 3 games and the other 7 games etc. etc. The only question that’s particularly relevant is whether a government could have done something “better” in its own country.
  9. Didn’t the measures all have a vote in Parliament after they were brought in (admittedly quite belatedly in a number of cases)? Wasn’t there a long stop date on the legislation? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t know and have vague memories of these things from months and months ago. What emergency measures are currently in place / what emergency legislation is currently governing everything we do?
  10. I don’t think anyone is fooling or trying to fool anyone. I don’t think anyone is saying we haven’t got infections. We clearly have got high cases but hospitalisations haven’t followed. On that basis, why is there any need to try and fool people?
  11. Where do you live if you don’t think life is back to normal in the Uk? Other than a percentage of people still choosing to wear masks in Sainsburys what’s not ‘normal’ now?
  12. Not quite the same. There were laws governing pub opening times well before the war. During the war they were shortened to a few hours at lunch and a few in the evening. There were then different pieces of legislation - but they could be pretty much open from 11 to 11 with just a short break during the afternoon from the 20s until 88. After 88 there was no longer any requirement to have a break during the day. Even in the 90s though they were only allowed to be open 11-11. Different point though anyway I think was being made - it’s not how long current rules might last per se, but rather that the coronavirus legislation gives the government some powers to basically avoid the usual parliamentary and democratic process - they could in theory continue imposing new rules without bothering with the democratic process. Similar sort of thing during the war, but many differences between wartime legislation and the coronavirus legislation. I also thought most of the coronavirus legislation which gave the government emergency powers had an automatic end date, but not sure on that and/or when that date is.
  13. Are these the official figures or modelling Ricardo?
  14. Not a huge surprise 532 again, wasn’t likely to ditch it his soon. Tricky one for selection today - do you try and match them / counter their physical threat a bit, or do you back yourselves to go and outplay them. My concern here is that we still get bullied and we’d have been better just going 4231 and going for it.
  15. My guess is that the next big spike in infections will be uni students, who have only been back a week or so (if at all yet). You’d expect the movement from them to their parents/grandparents to be less than for school age kids. In other news, third jabs also started up in the NW today after the NHS invites out last week.
×
×
  • Create New...