SIGN UP

Protecting The Nhs, Isn't It Supposed To Protect Us?

Avatar Image
dave50 | 14:30 Mon 21st Jun 2021 | News
32 Answers
A precedent has now been set that we must not now allow the NHS to become too busy with patients. It's no longer about preventing people from dying, it's now all about the NHS workload. It's becoming ridiculous.

Answers

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
Yes, the NHS is supposed to protect us. Where this ludicrous idea that we were supposed to protect the NHS gained ground is anybody’s guess. However, it has gained ground but, not unusually, the goalposts have been shifted. At the start of the pandemic everybody was locked up as far as possible to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed with Covid patients. That was...
16:28 Mon 21st Jun 2021
do you have a link to the story you're talking about>?
it is an open no limit demand system - so that lmiting demand may be no bad thing
Are we talking Corona here or an ailment-wide approach (in your opinion, of course)?
Cheer up, dave....
If you catch CV19 you could always help out by refusing medical treatment, that'll reduce the workload of the NHS.
I think they are just trying to prevent the NHS being swamped by Covid-19. Has that not been the main reason for all the restrictions over the last 18 months or so?
Scrap the dump. Not fit for purpose. Full to the brim with bloated unusable managers and meetings about meetings.
Start again if possible.
Could be worse. We could live in Sweden.
Question Author
It's not being swamped, it won't be, millions have been vaccinated. It's busier yes but not swamped, it's something they will just have to cope with.
is this based on a news item? if so can you link to it so i can understand whats changed?
They are coping but they’re still being cautious in case there’s a third wave.
Question Author
Bednobs, I don't have a particular link but that's what the continued restrictions are all about, protecting the NHS, its on the news every day.
but didnt you post about that last week? and a few weeks before that?as this is in news, i presume there is something new?
Yes, the NHS is supposed to protect us. Where this ludicrous idea that we were supposed to protect the NHS gained ground is anybody’s guess. However, it has gained ground but, not unusually, the goalposts have been shifted.

At the start of the pandemic everybody was locked up as far as possible to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed with Covid patients. That was largely a success; the service was not overwhelmed, the “Nightingale” hospitals that were built cared for virtually nil patients (and they were hardly likely to as there was no staff available to run them). However, during the last eighteen months or so the NHS has become the NCS (National Covid Service) and treatment of most other ailments was largely abandoned.

Things have now moved on. Yes, infections are rising but, thanks to vaccination, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths have all been much less prevalent. But there is now a new kid on the block. Hospital waiting lists for trivial matters (you know, cancer, heart defects) and the really trivial stuff (hips, knees, the sort of thing that leaves patients with long term debilitating pain which doesn’t kill them, but which many of them wish it did) are now at record levels. So now the emphasis has changed. Originally you were “encouraged” not to contract Covid because it would fill up the hospitals; now you’re encouraged not to contract it (or anything else) because there are now waiting lists for treatment the likes of which the NHS has never seen. A by-product of this is that lockdowns and other restrictions are likely to persist for the foreseeable, once again to “protect” the NHS.

The NHS was woefully unprepared for the pandemic. It is awash with directors and managers, trusts, committees and study groups. But none of them thought to have the service prepared for nationwide incidents such as this. Instead, we saw the “managers” singularly unable to manage, flapping around blaming the government for their inadequacies.

So, I’m afraid the public will continue to have to shelter the NHS from too many patients. This government seems determined to micro-manage people’s lives to reduce the chances of them needing medical treatment. But they should bear in mind that the NHS exists to treat the sick and injured, it does not exist so that we can all prevent it from having to do so.
Question Author
As usual NJ you have hit the nail on the head.
Of course we need to protect the NHS. We protect our armed forces, we protect our police forces, by funding them properly so that they will be able to do their job of protecting us. Some people throw their KFC boxes out of their car windows because they expect the poor *** who work for the Council to pick them up - after all, it keeps them in work so they should be grateful. I don't like that attitude.
^^^What on earth are you talking about?
We protect the NHS so they are in shape to protect us. That is what it means, whether you agree or not
LOL....it is a recurring pattern.......dave poses the question and sets up NJ for the best answer.
// Could be worse. We could live in Sweden.//

sweden? the place trumpeted by NJ for a year as the way to treat Covid because it was so good and WE were so bad?
that place?

righto!
Question Author
Also when the BBC news is giving the daily covid and vaccination figures, why do they give the daily infections but not the hospilisation figures which in my opinion is the number that matters?

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Protecting The Nhs, Isn't It Supposed To Protect Us?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.