Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Yes don't be influenced by the scientists advising government even though they've been telling us for months that we must follow the science
Doesn't seem like that long ago we were clapping the NHS workers, now those nasty parasites we call a government have declared war on GP's
|
The thing is that following the science isn't an exact thing because especially at the cutting edge (which this is, as it's a new virus and understanding changes) the views change and this can even depend on who you are asking.
Even now there are plenty saying that we need to move to "Plan B" (whatever that entails, since it seems to be a list of possible options) or more to control it (yet actually it isn't running out of control - cases are decelerating, and hospital admissions aren't at a high level on the current measuring), and others saying (including SAGE modelling, which has a habit of being an overestimate even at the most optimistic) that it will be fine on the current parameters. And yes, those who ask for more restrictions are probably right that it will reduce cases and hospitalisations but that if everyone stays at home all day there will be other effects from this, if for example people didn't go clothes shopping, then all the clothes shops wouldn't make any money, and they would have to close, resulting in job losses, repeat this for anything which could be affected, with no furlough it would literally be that.
It's also pretty fair to suggest that a lot of the NHS, unions etc, are relatively Labour-leaning and don't like the Tories, so would definitely like to see what's in no doubt a right-leaning Tory government put under undue and perhaps unjust pressure.
The key point is that none of the key medical people such as Whitty and Vallance are yet calling for restrictions. These are the people the Government will listen to, and in their situation, it is definitely an advisory capacity since again they can only really advise on the situation with the virus itself, not the idea of "living with" the virus, which is something Whitty suggested some while back.
To me it seems unsurprising that with the levels of vaccination we have, with a variant which is now pretty transmissible and more so than the original (which wasn't too bad here either) the infection has shifted into primarily children (who aren't vaccinated) and adults who have chosen not to.
---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:36 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Speaking to friends who are GPs, one of the major challenges is the increase in older patients* (who often have complex needs, so a 10 minute standard appointment isn’t sufficient, and they require more appointments due to the complex needs).
Also, there are fewer GPS - there are now just 0.45 fully qualified GPs per 1000 patients in England – down from 0.52 in 2015. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-su...neral-practice
*5.5 million over 75, 1.6 million over 85, 600k over 90. |
I know they have to put a window on it but surely the follow up needs of known complex patients could mean the GP pops forward a longer time slot.
If someone (like me) who hasn't been to the GP for years on end presents with something relatively routine you'd expect the initial consultation would be a 10-15 minute job to gather info and stuff, but based on that if any follow up needs longer, then this should be longer - and if you're asking Mrs Scott with her bunions, piles, dodgy ticker and arthritic knees to come in for her pain next week, that this might take 30-45 mins, that's surely the time slot you say it needs to see her?
Maybe it's obvious to me but less so to others you adapt to the needs of the people you're serving?