The issues with the NHS is certainly making me think about going for a routine check up - I'm fine, but going in for blood tests etc (supposed to be every year), taking up the practice's time (when it's next to impossible to get an urgent appointment) means I just don't bother. I had a nasty cut from a bike crash a year ago - really should have gone in for it to be stitched, but I just patched it up and carried on - thankfully it didn't get infected, but I have a nasty scar.
The problem currently is that you can’t fix the NHS without fixing the care system and council budgets.
As I see it, you can't fix the NHS and the care system without fixing society in general.
People need to take some responsibility for their own personal health and help unwell family members. All of the things that point to poor health outcomes and higher mortality like poor education, poverty and lack of opportunity all need fixed.
As someone alluded to earlier in the thread, it's like the current shit roads we have, you can patch them up all you want but it's only a temporary fix as they actually need resurfaced or to be built properly in the first place. The health and care system feels like this, lots of sticking plasters being applied without addressing the underlying injury.
My mrs pal has been suffering with sciatica for the past few months. Over the past few years she's also been treated for breast cancer. All on the NHS
The sciatica has been causing huge problems for her to the point she's on the verge of a mental breakdown. Her parents paid for a private consultation for her yesterday at a dedicated private hospital. The consultant there was absolutely horrified by the lack of care from the NHS consultant. Essentially it was "you've got sciatica, here are some painkillers, go away". No MRI, no tie in with her previous cancer diagnosis, no treatment plan other than the painkillers.
Years ago my mother experienced some migraines. She went to the NHS, they did a scan, told her she had lesions on her brain and she likely had MS and sent her on her way. Nothing further offered. Naturally my mother was devastated so she went for a private consultation and a battery of diagnostic tests and a fully in depth discussion with the consultant. The result of which was reassurance that those lesions were perfectly normal for someone of her age, she didnt have MS and advice and guidance on what to do going forward.
Yes, it's broken.
Perhaps the government needs to look at fixing the demand side issue. Chronic conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes (and all the associated health problems) are due to skyrocket due to poor lifestyle choices and lack of education. Diets full of processed crap are now the norm. And, if you follow the latest scientific research, the NHS's heavy focus on cholesterol and low fat is now woefully outdated as a predictor of heart disease, dietary health etc.
We have been told for years that a low fat, high carb, low cholestrol diet is healthy by the NHS etc. But just look at what has happened during that time. Obesity is now out of control, and the number of people living with serious life-limiting chronic health conditions is at levels never seen before. So something about this approach is clearly not working.
GP's (if you can actually get to see one), seem really only there these days as the gateway to book hospital appointments, or as dishers out of pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical products that mask a patients symptoms rather than address a patients underlying issues (there is no money in this).
My guess is that most GP's know very little about the latest research in diet, nutrition etc. and what a huge role this plays in health outcomes. They are stuck with the outdated dietary advise promoted by the NHS and entrenched in a cycle of prescribing endless pharmaceuticals with often very limited efficacy and frequent side effects. Statins for example.
To prove this you only need to look at the US, where the use of pharmaceutical products per head is the highest in the world. Yet they also now have the biggest chronic disease burden in the world, and the most metabolically unhealthy population. It wasn't always this way. To see for yourself tale a look at some Woodstock photos from the 60's. See how slim and healthy everyone looked. Compare these photos to the overweight and unhealthy young people all around you these days and you will see that something has changed.
But it feels almost like the huge food industry and the pharmaceutical industry wants it to be this way. After all there in nothing so profitable as a repeat customer. A customer addicted to processed food full of sugar and seed oils to make them unhealthy, and then requiring expensive medication to address the symptoms - for life. Ozempic is the latest profitable wheeze. An expensive and regular treatment to address an issue that could, in most cases, simply be managed through a better diet.
So it might surprise you that almost all members of the US Congress on both sides of the house receive lobbying money from the Pharmaceutical industry. I expect it is similar in the UK and I am aware that 86% of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)'s budget is derived from the drug industry. Look it up, and then maybe the penny will drop as to why we are in this mess without seemingly a will from the top to change things.
Remember, without an unhealthy population, the pharmaceutical industry makes no money. He who pays the piper and all that.
To affect the demand side through public health you really need to look at what worked for smoking. Huge and hard hitting public health campaigns and rapidly escalating taxation.
Be brave Government that did either as the criticism from the libertarian sections of society of nanny stateism. Can you imagine if a freddo was £2?
That would also only work on the food side - getting people to do something ie exercise would be even harder to lever.
most GP’s know very little about the latest research in diet, nutrition etc. and what a huge role this plays in health outcomes.
Go on?
Go on?
From the US:
an average of 11 hours of nutrition training throughout an entire medical program
How much nutrition training do doctors get
And from the UK:
We learn nothing about nutrition, claim medical students
Doctors know little about nutrition or excersize
And this is just the established (and now somewhat out of date) basics that they know little about, let alone the recent developments in nutrition research, which as ever take quite some time to filter down to education programmes.
I know this because my wife is a qualified and practicing nutritionist, so she, and I to some extent are aware of how much things have evolved, and how much we now understand about how nutrition, and the very closely linked metabolic/gut health, impacts a whole range of health outcomes.
Poor nutrition and other lifestyle factors such as sleep, excersize etc. have now been identified as the single biggest predictor of a whole range of diseases and health issues, with genetics being less important than it was previously believed to be. We really are what we eat.
But your average GP in the UK knows seemingly very little about any of this. So can you see the problem?
People need to take some responsibility for their own personal health and help unwell family members.
I am not a GP, or a consultant (or a nutritionist for that matter). We need professionals, and to have access to them, and pay them well for their learning and application so that they'll keep at it.
And from the UK:
One of those articles is 5 years old and the other is 8 years old...D'you not think things might've progressed at all?
IMV as a GP, the relentless push to make us more "efficient" is killing the golden goose.
A GP used to be about twice as cost-effective (on average) as a hospital doctor. This meant that a pound of NHS money spent on primary care (GPs) gave you about twice the benefit of a pound spent on secondary care (hospitals).
That wasn't because we're in some way better, but a lot to do with the fact that we could get to the low hanging fruit in health benefits.
The main way that we achieve that is through continuity of care, which means that we know our patients, they know us, and we tend to have a good working relationship.
To have continuity of care, when demand is variable, you need to have spare appointments. This is inefficient.
You also need your GP to be reasonably rested. GPs are mostly spotting needles in haystacks, it's nye on impossible to do this if we're fatigued.
The other part of what we do is take shortcuts based on our clinical experience. No other clinicians in the NHS see the number and variety of patients that we do. This makes us pretty good at using our spider sense to diagnose things (and know when there's not likely to be much wrong) very quickly. Again it's nye on impossible to do this when we're fatigued.
Our final secret source is our consultation and communication skills. This is what we specialize in. Yes we're not perfect, but on average we have more training in it than most other clinicians (other than therapists). Again it's very hard to communicate effectively when we're fatigued.
Rested GPs are inefficient, because if we're not tired to the point of exhaustion it means that there's unused capacity in the system.
If you have a rested GP with a reasonable amount of time on their hands who knows you, then in general we're pretty good at spotting and effectively treating things before they become serious much more cheaply than hospital doctors do.
However, everything that has been done to General Practice since I've been a GP has seemed to be with the aim that we should work more like hospital doctors with guidelines written by hospital doctors, targets devised by hospital doctors and the focus on patient access with no regard to continuity of care. At the same time we're being reorganised into structures that look a lot like community versions of hospital hierarchies. Our patients have been fragmented into seeing lots of different people for different things.
At the same time, over the past fifteen years, funding has actually been taken away from primary care and given to hospitals.
Crazy when you think about it. You have one service that is twice as effective as another. You respond by reorganising the more effective service to look more like the other one, whilst at the same time removing funding from it and giving it to the other one.
It's madness.
I am not a GP, or a consultant
Sure, but I wonder how many folks have read the NHS constitution, and particularly the first sentence of the patient responsibility section of it?
One of those articles is 5 years old and the other is 8 years old…D’you not think things might’ve progressed at all?
It is very slowly changing as people become aware, but still not a lot according to my wife. If anything, often views have become somewhat entrenched as there are many vested interests trying to ensure that medicine remains primarily a pharmacological and surgical based pursuit. Medics and scientists who fall outside of this, or who propose treatment protocols that rock the establishment boat are frequently labelled as cranks, or struggle to get adequate funding to support their research.
Meanwhile research for new pharmaceuticals is awash with cash - because huge financial returns can be made by corporations and their shareholders. And sponsorship of almost all major therapeutic areas, it's key opinion leaders, and their educational congresses is by the pharmaceutical industry. So it is not a level playing field.
Hence the growing prevalence of things like Ozempic which is supposed to help manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes. But type 2 diabetes can in most cases also be perfectly adequately managed, or sent into remission, through improved nutrition and without the potential side effects of drugs like Ozempic.
But like I said before, there is not much money to be made from healthy eating.
Sure, but I wonder how many folks have read the NHS constitution, and particularly the first sentence of the patient responsibility section of it?
I think this sits nicely with the rights/responsibilities conversation.
When it comes to the issues with the NHS there isn't any human element involved that doesn't have a case to answer for making better choices.
As for the reform, the NHS is a franchise with many, many chiefs and reform is usually a one size fits none process. Look at the shitshow that has been the NHS Digital, Improvement, Leadership Academy absorption into NHSE, Haemorrhage many quality people due to the lack of competence of the leadership function compounded by the size and complexity of the task.
My experience thus far on some of the FTC's I've worked is there is a real lack of competence in leadership, this may in some part be down to choice (that in itself is a challenge the NHS is yet to crack), but more often than not it is down to a lack of time to devote towards growing competence and all that entails Vs the competing priorities people have to manage. It's quite sad to see close up the impact of that in human terms.
Medics and scientists who fall outside of this, or who propose treatment protocols that rock the establishment boat are frequently labelled as cranks, or struggle to get adequate funding to support their research.
I've had direct experience of this myself, where an ex-GP and a patient essentially drove our GPs to distraction with their insistence that only a particular diet would be acceptable as advice for T2D patients and that to show commitment to this, we (the practice staff) should all convert our own diets to align with their particular fetish. It was a short conversation after that. Cranks indeed.
I know this because my wife is a qualified and practicing nutritionist
Not to rock any boats . But Anyone is a nutritionist. It's not a title protected by law.
By this I mean, it's kinda just a made up title that doesn't have a legally qualified backing.
Not to say nutrition advice isn't of use. But the concept of a nutritionist (over, say, an actual dietician) is nothing short of faddy bs most of the time.
Tumeric anyone?
Sorry.
And I don't really get this adversity to pharmaceutical treatments.. yes, big pharma can often be terrible and expensive, but I. Reality it's the introduction of measured and tested drug treatment that had significantly prolonged life.
To take your example of ozempic... YES... of course patients with newly diagnosed type 2 DM can reverse their condition with weight loss (5-10% body weight loss). You don't need to adhere to nutritionist advice for this. You just need to eat less - salad, shakes, stir fry approach works! But people don't. (Well, some highly motivated people do.. And that self selecting audience is probably what your wife sees I guess). The rest can't just be left to rot. So what do we do...we treat with pharma and operations to make them drop the weight. Cos, shamefully, it works.
DrP
DrP
I'm afraid that there's a massive gap between the claims made for nutritional medicine and the actual evidence that shows those benefits.
I've read Tim Spector's books. They're very interesting, but the actionable advice that he gives can be summed up in a couple of pages, which, in fact, is what he does at the end of them.
The reason that there isn't much time spent on it at medical school is because in terms of practical advice it really isn't that complicated as per Tim Spector's couple of pages.
If we're going on about Big Pharma, then it's only fair to point out that Big Supplement is far worse and far less regulated.
And I don’t really get this adversity to pharmaceutical treatments
Because people are generally emotional and scientifically illiterate. 'Natural' remedies are seen as better cos they're er, natural and a bit magic. The fact the many pharmaceuticals are basically the active ingredients from natural remedies with the shit removed, active mechanism understood and the dosage carefully calibrated is way beyond peoples willingness to understand. They'd rather go with simple pseudo science than accept they are thick and don't understand real science. They often do their own research as well........being completely incapable of making any rationale judgements about what they find.
And I don’t really get this adversity to pharmaceutical treatments
Pharmaceutical treatments have their place, many are excellent, but many also come not only with significant costs, but also with potential risks too. Might I remind you that there have been some very significant criminal fines paid by the pharmaceutical industry for fraudulent, misleading and ethical behaviour relating to safety and usage:
These are just the ones we know about
Then there are also the absolute horror shows like Vioxx, and the lack of much real-world efficacy of things like Statins, but often considerable side effects.
There is also the correlation I mentioned before. By far the biggest consumer of prescription medication in the world per person is the USA. So they should be by far the healthiest population right? Wrong, they have some of the worse levels of serious chronic illness in the world. Sure, much of it is diet related, and some is probably due to the poorest not having the same level of access to healthcare as the more well off, but facts are facts, so perhaps ask yourself how is this the case with so much access to pharmaceutical treatments?
I’m afraid that there’s a massive gap between the claims made for nutritional medicine and the actual evidence that shows those benefits.
I'm not talking about popping a load of supplements and pills. That's a whole other minefield. I'm talking about what constitutes a basic and healthy diet and the latest research that shows that the previously recommended low-fat (high sugar), high carb, low cholesterol diet, is not no longer considered a very healthy option given what we now know.
Wrong, they have some of the worse levels of serious chronic illness in the world.
A majority of citizens are over 40, access to healthcare is sporadic and expensive for many, and the work culture and work place protection is poor.
There are very real problems of over prescription and consumption of many medical pharmaceuticals in the USA as well (not least opioids)... but "natural" alternatives wouldn't be any better for those effected if they were to be used instead.
After today's farce. Yes.
4 ambulances and a gp visit due to poor comms and absence of people commitment to a decision
And what have Labour done to oppose any of the above? What have they done to hold the Tories feet to the fire?
**** all, that’s what!
Alex
- which bit of the Tory's having a big majority in Parliament are you missing plus a client media?
- also, a key issue in the USA is the ability to obtain prescription drugs OTC and over-prescription of other drugs
which bit of the Tory’s having a big majority in Parliament are you missing
There has been an ongoing and unprecedented epidemic of excess deaths across all age ranges since 2021 and mostly it is not Covid related. So clearly there has been some significant mis-management happening under the Tories watch.
Some of it will be delayed care due to GP's not seeing patients face to face for a while combined with a huge backlog on NHS waiting lists. Some will be the collateral fall-out from lockdowns and the stress, poor mental health, loneliness and financial hardship that lockdowns created for many. Some will be due to lifestyle factors brought about by lockdown, e.g. increased drinking, less people playing sport etc. Some will be down to doctors strikes and staff/ambulance shortages. Some will be down to the general NHS problems already discussed in this thread. And some, (heaven help us), might be down to the introduction of a novel medication in early 2021 with no long term safety data.
It would be an easy win for Labour to hold the Tories responsible for this utter and ongoing shit-show. Yet Labour don't even seem interested to look into the excess death situation. Why is that? Is it perhaps because during the pandemic, all Labour seemed to want to do was to call for more, longer, harder, sooner of whatever it was the Tories were proposing?
It would be an easy win for Labour to hold the Tories responsible for this utter and ongoing shit-show.
Who else could be responsible if the Tories have been in charge for 13+ years?
You really are talking nonsense.
Who else could be responsible if the Tories have been in charge for 13+ years?
You really are talking nonsense.
I think you have missed the point, which was about excess deaths. Why would Labour seemingly not want to investigate the ongoing large number of excess deaths across all age groups, particularly when the outcome of such an investigation would no doubt mean the Tories were made to look even more awful than they currently look?
According to The Lancet, they state that: "in the period from week ending 3rd June 2022 to 30th June 2023, excess deaths for all causes were relatively greatest for 50–64 year olds (15% higher than expected), compared with 11% higher for 25–49 and < 25 year olds, and about 9% higher for over 65 year old groups".
They also state that: Deaths involving cardiovascular diseases were 33% higher than expected, while for specific cardiovascular diseases, deaths involving ischaemic heart diseases were 44% higher, cerebrovascular diseases 40% higher and heart failure 39% higher".
This likely equates to somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 excess deaths more than would be expected during the June 2022 to June 2023 period. That's 1,050 extra deaths a week a week, 150 extra deaths each and every day (equivalent to a Boeing 737-700 aircraft full of passengers going down every single day). And the vast majority are not Covid related.
These numbers of deaths are a long, long way above normal parameters, and very unusual after a deadly pandemic where your would usually expect mortality rates to improve somewhat. Yet unlike the daily Covid death toll, we don't hear much about this on the news, and our MP's simply do not seem bothered enough to make it a priority to find out just what on earth is going on.
I have written to our Labour MP about this and was fobbed off by him. Seemingly he didn't even want to acknowledge that there could be a problem. And one thing he was sure of was that it couldn't be anything to do with the vaccines. So that's a relief!
So why on earth don't Labour want to shoot into an open goal?
the introduction of a novel medication in early 2021 with no long term safety data
There’s a long tail of damage from Covid, you wouldn’t expect excess deaths to be zero in this period we’re calling “post pandemic” which isn’t really “post” at all. And Labour have promised to investigate anything left outstanding from the already ongoing enquiry, and specifically how money was spent and who it went to. Now pull your anti-vax tinfoil hat on tighter and shut up now please, there’s a good fellow.
There’s a long tail of damage from Covid, you wouldn’t expect excess deaths to be zero in this period we’re calling “post pandemic” which isn’t really “post” at all. And Labour have promised to investigate anything left outstanding from the already ongoing enquiry, and specifically how money was spent and who it went to. Now pull your anti-vax tinfoil hat on tighter and shut up now please, there’s a good fellow.
Many countries seem not to have the long tail of excess deaths from Covid, Sweden being one of these. Sweden with the lowest excess mortality in Europe throughout 2022-23. So how do you square that circle? Yet Sweden is also a heavily vaccinated country, so is it the vaccines? Maybe not, although we do know that since Sweden did not lock down to anywhere near the extent that many other countries did, then the lack of collateral damage from not shutting down the country and it's health service could be balancing the books here somewhat.
Saying that Labour will investigate in 2027 when the enquiry looks likely to conclude is a bit late don't you think for the 150 people a day needlessly dying? What if one of those deaths was from your family? Would you be so blase about it all then?
Still, you sound like you know exactly what is causing those deaths, so why don't you give us your reasons backed up by data, even though the actual data shows that only a small proportion are related to Covid. But wait guys, no need to investigate - kelvin on the internet knows!
As for being anti-vax, you are clutching at straws. I've had two plus my booster. I needed to with work as I travel on an almost daily basis. I just want to get to the truth - so why don't you?
I can’t help but wonder which one of the previous trolls have registered here again as alex22…
By far the biggest consumer of prescription medication in the world per person is the USA. So they should be by far the healthiest population right? Wrong, they have some of the worse levels of serious chronic illness in the world. Sure, much of it is diet related, and some is probably due to the poorest not having the same level of access to healthcare as the more well off, but facts are facts, so perhaps ask yourself how is this the case with so much access to pharmaceutical treatments?
I mean, correlation certainly does not equal causation.
There's SOOO many factors in play here. Many have already been mentioned. Inequality to access to healthcare probably being the biggest in the US, along with massively differing 'incentives' regarding the payment system.. Basically, the poorest and illest DON'T get any meds (ok, over-exageration, but you get the gist) and get iller and die.. whilst the richest get (probably) far too many meds..
Additionally, it could be argued that the iller one is, the more medication/treatment one requires, and NOT the other way round..
DrP
And the vast majority are not Covid related.
But the report points out that excess deaths are of people who're vulnerable to covid effects, those being cardio-vascular disease, other heart diseases, acute respiratory failure and diabetes, all of which are known risk factors of covid, and says that more research is needed. You can't just say they're not covid related.
I can’t help but wonder which one of the previous trolls have registered here again as alex22…
A troll, on a bike forum, are you serious?
Rather than calling people you clearly disagree with trolls or tin foil hat wearers etc, why not just engage with the discussion at hand? If you think I am wrong just say so, but be prepared to back this up with evidence. In this way we can keep the discussions civil. Thanks.
But the report points out that excess deaths are of people who’re vulnerable to covid effects, those being cardio-vascular disease, other heart diseases, acute respiratory failure and diabetes, all of which are known risk factors of covid, and says that more research is needed. You can’t just say they’re not covid related.
Same would be true in Sweden too surely. But they, and a few other countries do not seem to have much in the way of excess death. But then again some do. According to the Euromomo data, Germany for example has a higher spike is excess death in 2023 (14.44%) than it did in the first year of the pandemic (12.06%). This is very strange.
And anyway, we have all (well mostly all) been vaccinated now against Covid, so surely this should be dramatically reducing risk factors for those who are vulnerable.
Many ways of looking at it, many potential factors at play, but which is correct? This is why it very urgently needs looking into, but no-one seems to want to do this., least of all the media. Why is that?
And anyway, we have all (well mostly all) been vaccinated now against Covid, so surely this should be dramatically reducing risk factors for those who are vulnerable.
Vaccine take-up has been patchy since the first roll out when most folks were (obviously) super keen, and folks often think that one shot and they're done. Patients IME don't understand that there have been different variations of the vaccine, and it often has side effects that are uncomfortable and unpleasant. Our last vaccine drive (September -onwards) had a very poor take-up with folks opting for their regular flu, but often refusing the COVID despite being in risk groups. While I'm not going to say that all these deaths are COVID related, I'm not massively surprised that after a world wide pandemic that challenged the capability and capacity of healthcare around the world that there's a tail of excess death, in fact I'd be genuinely surprised if there wasn't.
least of all the media. Why is that?
Covid like Brexit is yesterday's news and todays chip wrapping, and there's more interest in BoJo's text messages. C'est la vie. I doubt it's a massive conspiracy TBH.
Then if that theory is to hold water, why no excess deaths in Sweden? They had less critical care capacity than the UK at the start of the pandemic?
And believe it or not, Sweden has a denser population than the UK (89% of the population of Sweden live close together in towns and cities, compared to just 84% in the UK). So this has little to do with it.
And normally following a deadly pandemic we would expect a period of positive mortality data, since many of the old and vulnerable have sadly already succumbed.
So this is highly unusual.
Then if that theory is to hold water, why no excess deaths in Sweden?
Have you forgotten that COVID was really really poorly managed in this country? That there's an enquiry going on right now becasue of that failure? That out of most developed nations bar Italy and some others; we had the worst outcomes and the worst excess deaths? That the Chancellor actively devised a scheme to help spread the disease? that the people in charge vacillated daily between lock down and "letting it rip" that our doctors had no PPE etc etc...
Comparing the UK with pretty much any other developed nation is going to see us coming off worse I'm afraid.
So this is highly unusual.
COVID is still a factor, I've had 2 GPs off work because of it, speaking to one last night he sounded like an 80year old with a 40 a day habit, that vulnerable people keeping dying of it, or complications arising from it doesn't seem that unusual to me.
Have you forgotten that COVID was really really poorly managed in this country? That there’s an enquiry going on right now becasue of that failure? That out of most developed nations bar Italy and some others; we had the worst outcomes and the worst excess deaths? That the Chancellor actively devised a scheme to help spread the disease? that the people in charge vacillated daily between lock down and “letting it rip” that our doctors had no PPE etc etc…
Comparing the UK with pretty much any other developed nation is going to see us coming off worse I’m afraid.
Comparing Covid deaths is problematic as all countries counted and measured in different ways. In the UK for example it was initially any death within 60 days of a positive test. Later this was dropped to within 28 days.
As for 'eat out to help out', there were identical upticks in cases after the summer of 2020 in almost every European country, so I think we can say that this isn't even a factor worth considering.
So the only real comparable measure between countries is by measuring excess mortality. It is not perfect, and there are several ways of doing this, but it is the best we have.
Sweden has come out not just better than the UK, but better than every other major country in Europe in terms of excess mortality between 2020 and 2023.
I think we can therefore agree that it was Sweden, who treated it's population like adults, and did not impose strict and damaging lockdown measures, or ineffective mask mandates, that has proved to have had the best approach at pandemic management.
But perhaps going slightly off the original NHS topic now so maybe I'll move this to another thread.
I think we can therefore agree that it was Sweden, who treated it’s population like adults, and did not impose strict and damaging lockdown measures, or ineffective mask mandates, that has proved to have had the best approach at pandemic management.
Given that there's been more or less uninterrupted debate since 2020 and a Wikipedia page devoted to the controversy generated by Sweden's response to COVID, I'm unsurprisingly going to disagree, but it is thread drift.
Given that there’s been more or less uninterrupted debate since 2020 and a Wikipedia page devoted to the controversy generated by Sweden’s response to COVID, I’m unsurprisingly going to disagree, but it is thread drift.
You disagree because Sweden has had the best excess mortality in Europe between 2020 and 2023 and perhaps a country with more deaths did better?
I believe that there are also now very high levels of excess deaths in Australia and New Zealand if it was these countries you are trying to compare to.
Very strange, can't quite get my head around your reasoning that less deaths is somehow worse, but let's agree to disagree and leave it there.
yawn.
did someone close the covid thread, or were you not getting enough attention in there?
I have recently been discharged from hospital having been laid up for 5 days. Having little conversations here and there with various nurses and staff and they all said the same thing, its really down on its knees.
One of the nurses described the NHS as being a third world environment. I have nothing negative to say about the NHS. My treatment whilst in hospital was really very good. They all worked very hard, constantly up and down the wards. They always smiled, had a laugh and loved helping and looking after people.
I have the utmost respect for the nurses and other hospital staff and I have no doubt its a very difficult job to work in given the current situation.
I don't think this is the place for more covid nonsense.
We've enough threads on that.
Yes its broken.
Most here will blame the tories.
I think its a systemic failure of our absolute inadequate politions across all parties.
NHS shouldnt be controled by one party and used as a campaign tool.
It should be protected and a cross party board with people from the actual NHS being utilised.
Spending needs to be upgraded and protected.
Whilst at the same time ensuring procurement and management are held responsible.
is today D3 of the junior doctors strike?
i appreciate that means its no longer 'news', but the lack of coverage is a bit odd... i cant even see reference to it on bbb/news/uk and even the Guardian has it now relegated to an OpEd piece looking at the political impact.
A troll, on a bike forum, are you serious?
Rather than calling people you clearly disagree with trolls or tin foil hat wearers etc, why not just engage with the discussion at hand? If you think I am wrong just say so, but be prepared to back this up with evidence. In this way we can keep the discussions civil. Thanks.
Interesting reply from someone who's just joined a bike forum and spends all their time on threads about the NHS then starting threads about the "manmade climate crisis"
If it looks like a duck...
can’t quite get my head around your reasoning that less deaths
*fewer
It should be protected and a cross party board with people from the actual NHS being utilised.
The trouble with that is that the NHS - or rather the universal provision of free healthcare by the state - is a very socialist policy. Probably the only socialist policy we have left in this country. For that reason the non-socialists will always want to destroy it and replace it with a private system because there's an enormous amount of money to be made out of it.
