Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm yes it has. Try comparing the above figures with other areas of public sector spending in the 2010s. 

I don't have them, do you?

It is possible to spend less on the NHS year on year whilst still spending more on it relative to other public sectors.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The budget hasn't been limited in comparative terms to any other government department or public sector - NHS spending has been consistently ringfenced and increased because it is the state religion of the rump UK. 
The extra funds shovelled into healthcare are simply delivering diminishing returns, because the costs of advanced medical treatment increase well above inflation. Those treatments are also being delivered over a longer period of time, as survival rates turn quickly fatal diseases into chronic ones. That costs more and so in that respect every modern healthcare system is a victim of its own success. 
The demand for medical treatment is also increasing significantly though because the boomer generation are all now falling apart with chronic ill-health. This is also flattening social care, which prevents hospitals from focusing on their real jobs rather than being a holding pen for those who can't look after themselves, but aren't acutely ill either. 
There is no straightforward way out of this, but 'Tory austerity' is really not the root cause of healthcare problems in Scotland. Scotland avoided the latest reorganisation mess under the coalition government and the government has had real choices to make with its budget. Brexit can certainly be added as a valid contributing factor from Tory policies but in terms of overall impact it's simply not at the top of the list yet. 
The most significant causes of declining healthcare performance - cost inflation and demand - cannot really be controlled by any government. 

I didn't say it was the root cause by that Westminster had a responsibility as well. I dont disagree with what you are saying regards an aging population etc

If you go to full fiscal autonomy the link is broken and the blame game of not enough resources ends.

Then it's entirely down to ScotGov's priorities and real tough choices.

It might be controversial but there is a real debate to be had regards the role of the NHS. If we want a fully comprehensive NHS then it needs to be paid for out of higher taxes - political parties in general are skirting round the issue.

[vikingTON]

More concern mewling from the shan modellers:

Quote

 

The north-east and north-west of England are seeing “concerning” rates of the Omicron variant, an expert has said.

Dr Mike Tildesley, from the University of Warwick and a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Modelling group (Spi-M) highlighted these regions, along with the Midlands, as areas of concern.

He said cases in London are “slowing down”, but scientists need two weeks to see if this continues.

 

Note the above phrase - "slowing down" - which I think it's fair to say most people would interpret in the context of a pandemic as 'still increasing, but more gradually than before'. 

Meanwhile, in the land of reality:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-covid-cases-by-borough-omicron-wave-peaked-latest-pandemic-b975583.html%3famp

Quote

 

Nearly two thirds of London boroughs have seen Covid rates fall amid hope that the capital’s wave of Omicron infections has peaked.

An Evening Standard analysis of the latest data shows the number of confirmed new cases has fallen in 19 out of the 32 boroughs. The figures cover the seven days up to January 2.

Wandsworth saw the biggest weekly decline in percentage terms. Its seven-day total of 5,405 was 1,751 fewer than the previous week - a 24.5 per cent decline.

The next biggest falls were in the neighbouring boroughs of Lambeth (1,659 fewer cases, down 22.1 per cent) and Kensington & Chelsea (519 fewer cases, down 19.7 per cent).

 

They are just pathological liars at this point in their far too long stint in the limelight. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

Having 2 people off sick in a department of 40 would be far from unusual 

It might be if they're pilots or surgeons.

[davidkennedyshand]

50 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

And SARS-Cov-2 begat COVID19, which begat Alpha, which begat Beta, which begat Gamma, which begat Delta, which begat Omicron

Ihu incoming

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ihu-new-covid-variant-france-what-b1988532.html

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I don't have them, do you?

It is possible to spend less on the NHS year on year whilst still spending more on it relative to other public sectors.

We spent more on the NHS during the 2010s than ever before - while spending less across the vast majority of other government (public sector) departments. That is ringfencing:

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I don't have them, do you?
It is possible to spend less on the NHS year on year whilst still spending more on it relative to other public sectors.

Austerity has hit across the board - after adjusting for inflation and demand then there are real cuts in expenditure across most departments. Whilst the NHS has not had cuts in pure monetary terms, an aging population means that it feels like a cut due the increase in demand. Even having inflationary rises in NHS expenditure wouldn't keep pace with that demand.

The real issue is - are the electorate willing to pay higher taxes to fund that demand?

Banging a few pots to "support the NHS" is easy - losing part of your income may seem unpalatable to some.

You can actually see from VT's own graphs that it has been very much a slicing strategy regards austerity - they started with welfare and moved through the departments - with the Commonwealth Office and International Development only recently being targeted.

One wonders how long NHS spending will stay out if the sights of the UK government - what we don't want is privatisation by stealth but a real debate about the future of the NHS.

The problem is that politicians are just not prepared to have that debate, to talk about increasing taxes to the levels required - it's all tinkering at the edges or short-term money grabs.

[Billy Jean King]

Reading that Nick Triggle article and one of the graphics shows that 5% of NHS staff are off sick for non-covid reasons.
That can’t be right or normal surely?

5% absence in any PS setting is pretty standard pre C19 times, certainly not excessive.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I couldn't believe this when I read it - completely mad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59919105

[Billy Jean King]

It turns out Djokovic had permission from the Australian Federal Government to enter the country. They tried to get him to sign a document rescinding his visa while denying him access to a lawyer. He is currently in a detention facility where refugees have been held for NINE years. 
Scott Morrison is a fucking scumbag. 

That's not really the full story is it ?

He had exemption to enter on those grounds (along with several other players) on the basis he brought the relevant paperwork to back this up - he didn't / couldn't so it's not quite how you portray it. Several of the players who were able to provide the relevant paperwork commented on the level of proof required ie umpteen documents. Djokovic's admitted himself his representative did not have the volume of paperwork others had produced.

[Billy Jean King]

I've done nothing BUT offer my opinions on everything covid related on this thread. You must be confusing me for someone else in your dotage ya daft auld bugger. [emoji1787]
My advice to you is to stop the sanctimonious sneering and looking down on others who don't share your view.
You are no better than the worst of the Tories you seem to have spent your life in a frothing fury over.
You are literally no different from Rees Mogg in that regard.
Of course you won't see it that way.

What Oaky means is he is right and anyone else who offers a differing opinion to his will be shot down as is his regular MO on everything.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That's not really the full story is it ?

He had exemption to enter on those grounds (along with several other players) on the basis he brought the relevant paperwork to back this up - he didn't / couldn't so it's not quite how you portray it. Several of the players who were able to provide the relevant paperwork commented on the level of proof required ie umpteen documents. Djokovic's admitted himself his representative did not have the volume of paperwork others had produced.

Was it not also that (initially) he wasn't prepared to hand over any evidence of his exemption?

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

It’s not a misrepresentation, you just can’t see it. 

You’re not here to discuss covid, you’re here to look down on people on this threads views on covid, mainly through sneering and snide comments. Yes you may engage on some specific points when challenged but the overall theme is there. 

You get attacked because you clearly entered the thread in bad faith so you’re treated as such. 

Sorry but that's absurd.

The reason I don't pontificate about Covid very much, is that I have the humility to recognise that I'm clueless where epidemiology is concerned.  I know it's not fashionable to declare an absence of profound expertise in these parts, but I'll do it anyway.

Obviously, however,  I have an interest like everyone else, because it impacts on me.

The irony of singling me out on this thread, with the charge of sneering is of course, pretty entertaining.  Countless posts on here display an awful lot more of that than mine do.  I can start pointing them out to you as they arise if you like?

I do think that much of the tone on here is decidedly questionable.  How you can equate saying so to posting in "bad faith", I'm much less certain about.

[Detournement]

19 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

That's not really the full story is it ?

He had exemption to enter on those grounds (along with several other players) on the basis he brought the relevant paperwork to back this up - he didn't / couldn't so it's not quite how you portray it. Several of the players who were able to provide the relevant paperwork commented on the level of proof required ie umpteen documents. Djokovic's admitted himself his representative did not have the volume of paperwork others had produced.

No the paperwork he had was already ok'd by the two medical boards. Everything was in place until Morrison moved the goalposts while he was flying over the shithole. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

No the paperwork he had was already ok'd by the two medical boards. Everything was in place until Morrison moved the goalposts while he was flying over the shithole. 

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Detournement]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

21 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

That's not really the full story is it ?

He had exemption to enter on those grounds (along with several other players) on the basis he brought the relevant paperwork to back this up - he didn't / couldn't so it's not quite how you portray it. Several of the players who were able to provide the relevant paperwork commented on the level of proof required ie umpteen documents. Djokovic's admitted himself his representative did not have the volume of paperwork others had produced.

Was it not also that (initially) he wasn't prepared to hand over any evidence of his exemption?

No he was granted the exemption on the basis of the paperwork submitted with the application. 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, ddfg said:

Maybe some of those who see this thread as an echo chamber could offer an opinion on how well or otherwise they consider the Scottish Government have handled the pandemic. 

In particular I would be interested to hear if they think that the First Minister has been honest and truthful in all of her dealings with the Scottish public since March 2020? 

Have the additional layers of protection imposed on Scotland made any significant difference to case numbers as compared to England? 

Have the protections made sense or even been necessary or propotionate? For example did it make sense to close pubs but still allow offsales to continue? 

Have certain business sectors been repeatedly subject of extra protections because they are easy targets whilst more difficult to deal with but much higher risk sectors been largely ignored?

Is the pandemic being used as a cover for years of under investment in the NHS?

 

Not especially well.  For example, terrible decisions were made early on regarding care homes.

Not entirely.  

It would appear not.

Sometimes.  Yes, because the intention was not to limit alcohol consumption, but to limit people mixing.

Yes, some sectors have suffered more than others in ways that often seem unfair. I wouldn't see hospitality as a particularly soft target that's easily dealt with though.

Yes and No.  The relationship between the people of the UK and the NHS is thoroughly weird.  I say that as a huge fan of the latter institution.

[Donathan]

14 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Not especially well.  For example, terrible decisions were made early on regarding care homes.

Not entirely.  

It would appear not.

Sometimes.  Yes, because the intention was not to limit alcohol consumption, but to limit people mixing.

Yes, some sectors have suffered more than others in ways that often seem unfair. I wouldn't see hospitality as a particularly soft target that's easily dealt with though.

Yes and No.  The relationship between the people of the UK and the NHS is thoroughly weird.  I say that as a huge fan of the latter institution.

I liken the weird relationship the people of the UK have with the NHS to the equally weird relationship between Americans and the military.

 

I think part of the reason why the NHS achieves poor outcomes compared to similarly sized European countries is because the UK spends an amount equal to or less than our European neighbours and yet we expect the NHS to do far more. A lot of European countries have free emergency and hospital care, but you need to pay to see a GP and for prescriptions (both means tested)

 

Because we are funding this low level stuff in the UK, there aren’t the resources in the system to provide a high standard of care to more sick patients.

 

I’ve heard of plenty of cancer patients, for example, who are diagnosed as terminal and offered only palliative care in the UK despite the existence of drugs that are proven to slow cancer progression and extend life expectancy by several months if not years. These drugs are very very expensive, far beyond the level at which the vast majority of us could afford to self fund (you’re talking a 4-figure sum for a month’s supply) but are not available on the NHS for the most part.

 

In other European countries they’d be funding these drugs instead of paying for Facebook mummies to take little Timmy to the family GP every time he sneezes.

 

Of course the other option would be to go full Scandanavia and increase taxes in order to have a genuinely well-funded, free at the point of use healthcare system. But assuming there is no political desire to do that in the UK, I really think the prioritisation of resources in the NHS is callous and unfair.

[deegee]

5 minutes ago, Donathan said:

I liken the weird relationship the people of the UK have with the NHS to the equally weird relationship between Americans and the military.

 

I think part of the reason why the NHS achieves poor outcomes compared to similarly sized European countries is because the UK spends an amount equal to or less than our European neighbours and yet we expect the NHS to do far more. A lot of European countries have free emergency and hospital care, but you need to pay to see a GP and for prescriptions (both means tested)

 

Because we are funding this low level stuff in the UK, there aren’t the resources in the system to provide a high standard of care to more sick patients.

 

I’ve heard of plenty of cancer patients, for example, who are diagnosed as terminal and offered only palliative care in the UK despite the existence of drugs that are proven to slow cancer progression and extend life expectancy by several months if not years. These drugs are very very expensive, far beyond the level at which the vast majority of us could afford to self fund (you’re talking a 4-figure sum for a month’s supply) but are not available on the NHS for the most part.

 

In other European countries they’d be funding these drugs instead of paying for Facebook mummies to take little Timmy to the family GP every time he sneezes.

 

Of course the other option would be to go full Scandanavia and increase taxes in order to have a genuinely well-funded, free at the point of use healthcare system. But assuming there is no political desire to do that in the UK, I really think the prioritisation of resources in the NHS is callous and unfair.

I’ve thought for a while, we’ve (in the UK) had too high an expectation from the NHS; exactly as you say, there’s too much free access and treatment and I’d vote for a means tested system rather than the vanity projection of free prescriptions for all in Scotland. COVID has brought this all to an acute need for resetting in the future. My work colleague in Ireland pays around £100 or so per month for health insurance and I’d happily pay more for a better serviced NHS. They have their own issues in Ireland to deal with; mainly staffing as trained nurses and doctors often move to UK or USA etc for better salaries.

That’s also my concern about pumping more endless money into our NHS; you lose a large chunk straight away in salaries and admin rather than frontline staff and equipment etc. Either way, I suspect we’ll be paying a lot more for the NHS one way or another in the coming years. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Here's the big difference.
I'm not wandering around claiming to be occupying some moral high ground.
WRK is. And he's not alone. You're guilty of it as well.
That's quite an important distinction.

Claiming the moral high ground could be applied to most posters.