Re: Coronavirus
 

More misleading drama. AIDS sufferers are prone to die from any number of things, and pretty much all 100,000 of them will dies regardless of CV19. Its also perfectly easy for them to take precautions to protect themselves (which they should be doing anyway, from everything else likely to kill them).

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not really sure what your stance is here, Paul.

Is it that the Government should just let coronavirus spread uncontrolled (which even they recognise is a bad idea)? Or are you just arguing the point because it’s me?

I think if you leave the fact you disagree with me on almost everything (especially politics) to the side and concentrated on the public health angle you’d accept things have moved on since the start of March and we know much more now than we did then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53315178#

Seems a bit harsh considering it was the NHS who also didn't follow 'procedures' when releasing people back into care homes and there was so little PPE available to anyone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris has been making overtures to the NHS this entire time. Whether this is because he doesn't want to piss them off during a pandemic or annoy his new northern constituencies I couldn't say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why harsh? NHS England were following Government policy:

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...mes-discharge/

In summary, the Government instructed the NHS to transfer patients from hospitals into care homes without testing to see if they were infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would agree with you that we need to 'control' coronavirus if that was feasible, jfmzn, but it's not. Carrying on as we are, we will get spikes all over the place ad infinitum. The virus can only be controlled by slowing it down until a vaccine is found, and we don't know if a vaccine will ever be found. We cannot go on disrupting lives and the economy like this. Sooner or later, the public is going to signal that enough is enough.

Protect the vulnerable by all means, and of course. But the virus really does needto spread or it will never be gone. That is one thing that most of the public is beginning to realise, and they will behave accordingly.

The spike in Melbourne is pretty worrying. If they let it get into New South Wales, the most populous of the Australian states, it will start all over again. They thought that they had nipped it in the bud. They haven't, and nowhere is safe from this.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

That is how you read it, but do you expect the government to lead the NHS by the nose? It is a professional body and as such, they should have ensured that no infected person left hospital. Bloody hell, ianch, you really have a slanted approach to politics!

Re: Coronavirus
 

The public won’t signal enough is enough as the body could racks up. We are back to test, trace, isolate. You speak of the economic harm which is where investing in our response reaps dividends in returning life as close to normality as we can. But we need the systems in place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have you only just woken up to this truth? There is no spin, it was government policy on 19 March to send hospital patients back into care homes, without making it mandatory for them to be tested for Covid-19. This is a fact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Government does lead NHS though, hence why it (and PHE) public guidance. However this is all a distraction politicising past mistakes, polarising the public and distraction from the work that needs to be done going forward.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is not "how" I read it, it is just the facts. There is no slanted approach, just the facts.

I understand the facts make you uncomfortable so you try and spin this to be a fault of NHS administrators but I am faraid at some point you will need to accept that this administration is culpable of a gross mistake. I doubt that you would see it the same way if this was your parent or relative who died as a result of this policy.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------

There is no distraction here. Many people would like to know how & why their loved ones had to die. This is not being politicised as you put it: if this was a Labour administration, people would be asking the same questions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sure they would, and I’m certain some members of the forum would be positively frothing at the mouth with incredulity if it was a Labour Government right now. However, as some lack objectivity it leads to circuitous debates about herd immunity, airport screening, testing, facemasks, “it’s a mild flu”, it’s much more prevalent than we thought, it’ll go away in the summer and raking over the same old debates.

By criticising the Government that delivered Brexit we immediately get tarred with equating an efficient public health response as a remainery conspiracy. Which it isn’t, however we are fighting against a narrative that’s difficult to control give the tendency of some to selectively quote, obfuscate or simply ignore reality when it suits. Government does the bidding of scientists and agencies, not the other way round apparently.

I find it easier to simply move on because the proof is in the pudding with the death figures and imminent economic recession, there will be plenty of time for a damning public enquiry in due course.

While some pretend “normal” is just a case of Boris standing up there and pretending all is fine, most on the forum now accept that without a health driven response necessary that the economy tanks either way. Even Pierre now accepts that managing the numbers carefully is a necessity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that the government didn't make it 'mandatory' does not excuse a so-called 'professional' health service from sending infected patients back into care homes! The professionals I worked with during my employment have all had their own professional codes of practice. Does the NHS not have one that provides that no-one with a highly contageous and deadly disease should be discharged into the community? If not, why not?

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

It's you who is going round in circles, jfman. There is no proof of anything with the figures. They are a correct statement of current figures, but you keep putting them in the context of deaths in other countries, who compile their figures in different ways. Moreover, the virus is still out there - the most recent serious outbreak is in Melbourne, which threatens the whole of Australia with a second peak. This will keep happening until the 'herd immunity', which you dismiss so casually, is achieved.

Don't expect a vaccine any time soon. We may have scientists all over the world working on it, but we have not found an effective one against any coronovirus yet, and we are unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

The virus is here to stay until it is finished with us. We either prolong the agony or we acknowledge it for what it is, protecting the vulnerable.

The time to judge is when this is over. This is nothing to do with Brexit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course there is spin
The NHS should not need to be told to test them.

What you are saying is you think the NHS is so completely useless at their profession that they must specifically be instructed to test patients are not infected before sending them back to a care home.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Simple, you made a false statement about herd immunity, I pointed this out.

To "defend" it you made up ridiculous statements about AIDS, and then bring politics into it, none of which was in any way relevant.