Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter
1 hour ago, Genie said:

The Prime Minister seems to think it is relevant enough to publicly tell off Starmer for his comments

I think Starmer should have picked something better to try and push BJ in front of the bus with. This was a botched assassination attempted. I think he should have not bothered with what was written on the website 3 months ago and managed that particular complaint differently. Now his card is marked. 

Now his card is marked?

He’s the leader of the opposition, something tells me his card may have been marked already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
10 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I think I prefer BJ to Cameron. He’s said that austerity is not going to happen after all this is over 

Fantastic, i can’t think of a single time untruths have spilled from that fat aristocratic scumbags lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

Can we agree that it isn't actually policy that once you get above an arbitrary unconfirmed age you're considered a lost cause by the NHS and left to not only die, but kill those around you?

I genuinely don't know. And that's not to be obtuse or obstructive but, as ever, it's complicated. I don't believe you will find anything like that written on a government website if that's what you mean, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not part of any triage guidance for clinicians. If that means you can 'win' a semantic argument on the internet with someone, go ahead and claim your internet points if it serves a purpose, but individual clinicians at individual trusts may well have different guidance. Don't forget the conversation moved some time ago to one of protecting finite resources and away from care at the point of need. (Helped in no small part by the Lansley reforms but a discussion perhaps for a different time). Define 'policy'. Government advice provides a part of the framework.

What should be absolutely obvious to everyone is that people, primarily the elderly, but also those with underlying health conditions, those that ambulances didn't collect (for a myriad of reasons), those who decided to not bother the nhs and stay at home, as well as those that filled out forms to say don't waste time and resource on me. Have all died. Without receiving care at the point of need. And they've done so in their thousands. Somewhere along the line triage decisions have been made in some of those cases and they will have been made, in line with guidance led policy decisions be that at government level, trust level, hospital level etc.

What should also be obvious is that residents of care homes have indeed been left to fend for themselves en masse. It's borne out in the statistics as well as in individual accounts.

How this all started of course, both the national situation and indeed this conversation, was off the back of the government advice that was, freeing up capacity as @LondonLax said, and as I very much agreed with.

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

 Its pretty obvious that it isn't and by the silence nobody is going to admit that its a conspiracy theory.

That's a strange logical conclusion to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murmurings of a public sector pay freeze from the unions this morning. Big shocker, not. They wouldn't dare touch NHS workers for fear of reprisals from voters I would have thought, and maybe excluding the Police Force, as far as the rest of us goes, no one really gives a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Genie said:

The Prime Minister seems to think it is relevant enough to publicly tell off Starmer for his comments

The Prime Minister is saying the context of the advice Starmer is referring to was the part you quoted. But it wasn't, the part Starmer was referring to was a different part of the document. Might be an error on Johnson's part, might not.

2 hours ago, Genie said:

I think Starmer should have picked something better to try and push BJ in front of the bus with. This was a botched assassination attempted. I think he should have not bothered with what was written on the website 3 months ago and managed that particular complaint differently. Now his card is marked. 

But his point isn't what was written on a website 3 months ago. His point is that Johnson is lying about it NOW. That's his issue. That when questioned about government advice, Johnson is lying about it now in the present day.
He's not written to the prime minister to ask him to correct a website from 3 months ago. He's writing to ask him to correct what he said in parliament this week which was a lie.

You keep trivialising this by passing it off as a bit of wording on a website 3 months ago. The entire point is that the PM is currently lying about it. In parliament.

I don't agree with the bit in bold at all. I think you're making far more of what Starmer did than what it was, and far less of what Johnson did. I'm not sure why.

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


17 minutes ago, hogso said:

Murmurings of a public sector pay freeze from the unions this morning. Big shocker, not. They wouldn't dare touch NHS workers for fear of reprisals from voters I would have thought, and maybe excluding the Police Force, as far as the rest of us goes, no one really gives a shit.

That’s what I heard too but surely they would make an exception for the  Nhs. Police and civil servants fine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Thanks for your informative post @HanoiVillan lots of interesting information. I think there is still a gap between “UK has a policy not to treat old people” which was claimed several times and what is actually happening (which is far from good). I know for a fact some old people are being treated and tested. It seems like at more local levels the most frail in the community are being managed differently for several reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
17 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not part of any triage guidance for clinicians.

I linked the NICE Triage algo up thread but apparently that has nothing to do with government advice (there isn't a big enough rolly eyes thingy to post here). What it doesn't explicitly say is how much age is a factor in the Frailty Score, I believe but haven't got around to finding it yet, that age is 50% of the score, effectively meaning anyone over 65 doesn't get admitted. I'm also aware that this triage doesn't tend to get done in hospital but prior, possibly by the paramedic / doctor that gets the initial response call

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, bickster said:

I linked the NICE Triage algo up thread but apparently that has nothing to do with government advice (there isn't a big enough rolly eyes thingy to post here). What it doesn't explicitly say is how much age is a factor in the Frailty Score, I believe but haven't got around to finding it yet, that age is 50% of the score, effectively meaning anyone over 65 doesn't get admitted. I'm also aware that this triage doesn't tend to get done in hospital but prior, possibly by the paramedic / doctor that gets the initial response call

Patient care pathways are boring though. 😉

It all adds up to contribute to the decisions, which all ultimately mean nothing at all if there is no room at the inn. 

The point (in reality) around the advice discussed yesterday is surely that once the room had been made in the system to accommodate higher numbers of admissions that the advice was withdrawn or changed and that's the thing getting lost I feel while everyone riffs off people's individual previous posts. (Including me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â