Coronavirus

Originally Posted by jfman

Who'd have thunk it.

Ambulances queueing up, temporary morgues. But at least we protected the economy.

---------- Post added at 01:04 ---------- Previous post was at 00:52 ----------



And here I was thinking all the pandemic deaths were the low hanging fruit being pulled forward. We should have less excess deaths, if that were actually true.

Still hitting the "oldies’ hardest, due to pre-existing conditions and Co-morbidities.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ecember%202022).

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Still hitting the "oldies’ hardest, due to pre-existing conditions and Co-morbidities.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ecember%202022).

Death, in general for any reason, usually remains highest for those 85 or over!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

Who'd have thunk it.

Ambulances queueing up, temporary morgues. But at least we protected the economy.

---------- Post added at 01:04 ---------- Previous post was at 00:52 ----------



And here I was thinking all the pandemic deaths were the low hanging fruit being pulled forward. We should have less excess deaths, if that were actually true.

What I don't understand is that people, in general, do not seem really bothered about the dire state of the healthcare services. If you judge by the Press & Social media, there is more interest around Harry's book that the collapsing NHS.

Why is this?

[Sephiroth]

Prolly Harry gives light relief whereas peops are livid/furious about the NHS. As to the press, which is considered to be some sort of opionion weathervane, they are just paid hacks only interested in headlines that sting.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What I don't understand is that people, in general, do not seem really bothered about the dire state of the healthcare services. If you judge by the Press & Social media, there is more interest around Harry's book that the collapsing NHS.

Why is this?

The media just love a good bit of drama to stir everyone from time to time.


Harry's book provides this but the winter pressures on the NHS less so.


Though I'm wondering if the situation there is any or much worse than years before covid. There has always been winter issues with the NHS but most years it was swept under the carpet and not given an awful lot of airtime but the pandemic response has presumably focused a few more people on the NHS than before.


Plus I guess there's always the view that if it doesn't affect you you're less interested in it. If you're not on a waiting list or in the treatment system or whatever then you're not involved with the NHS and less likely to pay much attention to what is happening there (compared with any other service or workplace you're not using).


To be fair, I'm not really bothered about Harry wanting to stir up drama out of nothing... it's getting tiresome.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Prolly Harry gives light relief whereas peops are livid/furious about the NHS. As to the press, which is considered to be some sort of opionion weathervane, they are just paid hacks only interested in headlines that sting.

But I see no evidence that, as you put it, that "peops are livid/furious about the NHS". A lot of the same people will still vote for the party that is directly responsible for the current situation, a sort of weird collective Stockholm syndrome.

As for "headlines that sting", there is a candidate where the old man who has fallen down at home, repeatedly rings 999 asking for help and no help arrives. In his last call, hours later, he says "just send an undertaker, it is too late". He dies shortly after this last message. I listened to this audio recording in horror. You would think that the tabloid hacks would jump on things like this as they are happening on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by ianch99

A lot of the same people will still vote for the party that is directly responsible for the current situation, a sort of weird collective Stockholm syndrome.

Yes, some people still vote Labour ....

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

But I see no evidence that, as you put it, that "peops are livid/furious about the NHS". A lot of the same people will still vote for the party that is directly responsible for the current situation, a sort of weird collective Stockholm syndrome.

As for "headlines that sting", there is a candidate where the old man who has fallen down at home, repeatedly rings 999 asking for help and no help arrives. In his last call, hours later, he says "just send an undertaker, it is too late". He dies shortly after this last message. I listened to this audio recording in horror. You would think that the tabloid hacks would jump on things like this as they are happening on a daily basis.

How about the headline (front page) in today's Times?


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...-nhs-nqkhhr0wg



---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

But I see no evidence that, as you put it, that "peops are livid/furious about the NHS". A lot of the same people will still vote for the party that is directly responsible for the current situation, a sort of weird collective Stockholm syndrome.

As for "headlines that sting", there is a candidate where the old man who has fallen down at home, repeatedly rings 999 asking for help and no help arrives. In his last call, hours later, he says "just send an undertaker, it is too late". He dies shortly after this last message. I listened to this audio recording in horror. You would think that the tabloid hacks would jump on things like this as they are happening on a daily basis.

At least:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ng-five-hours/

https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/19/grand...n%20March%2024.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, some people still vote Labour ....

You're right. For the NHS, the best period it ever had was under Labour before 2010.

---------- Post added at 16:14 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How about the headline (front page) in today's Times?


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...-nhs-nqkhhr0wg



---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------



At least:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ng-five-hours/

https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/19/grand...n%20March%2024

For something that is so fundamental to us being able to live our lives, I just don't see the coverage that the current status demands.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

<SNIP>

For something that is so fundamental to us being able to live our lives, I just don't see the coverage that the current status demands.

Tabloid Press Hacks, innit?

Originally Posted by ianch99

You're right. For the NHS, the best period it ever had was under Labour before 2010.

The Tories have been in power for 12 years now so it is right to hold them to account for their record. They tried to fund it with no capacity for slack as we saw every winter until COVID hit and, when COVID did it, it can't cope anymore. You've got already increasing waiting times even before the pandemic, then the backlog from the pandemic and now the A&E crisis from excess deaths/heart issues stemming from those not seen in time.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Tories have been in power for 12 years now so it is right to hold them to account for their record. They tried to fund it with no capacity for slack as we saw every winter until COVID hit and, when COVID did it, it can't cope anymore. You've got already increasing waiting times even before the pandemic, then the backlog from the pandemic and now the A&E crisis from excess deaths/heart issues stemming from those not seen in time.

Until expenditure on the NHS rises in real terms (presumably by NI or income tax rises or borrowing), the service won't improve.

People have been complaining about NHS funding for as long as I can remember, even way back in the 1990's, under Labour and Conservative (and coalitions).

Originally Posted by Paul

People have been complaining about NHS funding for as long as I can remember, even way back in the 1990's, under Labour and Conservative (and coalitions).

Because we've underfunded it for years compared to other similar countries: https://www.ft.com/content/f752a1ad-...9-4909974c6a2c

The UK has spent about 20 per cent less per person on health each year than similar European countries over the past decade, according to new research that shows how the NHS has been consistently starved of funding.

The data from the Health Foundation, which was shared with the Financial Times, found that health spending in the UK would have needed to rise by an average of £40bn per year in the past decade to match per capita health spending across 14 EU countries.



In the decade before the pandemic the UK spent on average around a fifth less on day-to-day health costs than the major EU countries studied. During the Covid crisis, spending increased by 14 per cent compared with the EU14 average of just below 6 per cent. However, this high level of spending had been needed to compensate for years of attrition in the run-up to the crisis, Charlesworth said.

It's not a surprise that with that underinvestment we're also seeing much longer waiting lists since 2010: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60305502



And again this started before COVID hit. COVID made it worse for sure both the virus itself and the subsequent delayed treatment from the year lost but when you run a health service that can't meet the demand it already had, there is no capacity at all to deal with a crisis.

Look at that BBC article about cancer waiting times. The number of people urgently seen for cancer has dropped from 90% in 2010 to 80% by 2017 and now 70%!

The NHS has got measurably worse. I don't know why we're just accepting such declines.