O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Ram59]

[QUOTE=swaledale;39558807]The issue with that from someone I know who is high up locally in the NHS was that there wasn't the trained staff available to be able to staff the hospitals. Apparently, and this is an insiders perspective not mine,, if the Nightingales had been fully used, it would have created a serious issue due to staff shortages etc.

If that was the case, there was no point in building the Nightingale hospitals then.

Surely, since the the peak of hospital admissions was reached over 3 months ago, since then staff could have been released from covid treatment and available for routine work, provided patients had been allowed to attend. If the remaining staff and their patients were transferred to nightingales then the hospitals could have returned to normal far quicker.

[MadAmster]

To the best of my knowledge, the Nightingales were built to take hospital overflow.

It may have been better to have designated them CV hospitals.

[Ram59]

To the best of my knowledge, the Nightingales were built to take hospital overflow.

It may have been better to have designated them CV hospitals.

I believe that they were intended only to take covid patients, many departments in hospitals were and still are under capacity because of the reluctance to admit patients.

Nightingales were designed with one aim, that was to treat covid patients. If all of the covid patients in one area could could be effectively quarantined in one hospital, then it would free up other hospitals to return to normal. It wouldn't even matter if a patient was in a hospital miles from home, as there is no visiting in any hospitals at the moment.

[MadAmster]

I believe that they were intended only to take covid patients, many departments in hospitals were and still are under capacity because of the reluctance to admit patients.

Nightingales were designed with one aim, that was to treat covid patients. If all of the covid patients in one area could could be effectively quarantined in one hospital, then it would free up other hospitals to return to normal. It wouldn't even matter if a patient was in a hospital miles from home, as there is no visiting in any hospitals at the moment.

In the end the overflow was as low as a matchday crowd at the red dogs cow shed. Half a dozen at most

[swaledale]

[QUOTE=Ram59;39558846]

The issue with that from someone I know who is high up locally in the NHS was that there wasn't the trained staff available to be able to staff the hospitals. Apparently, and this is an insiders perspective not mine,, if the Nightingales had been fully used, it would have created a serious issue due to staff shortages etc.

If that was the case, there was no point in building the Nightingale hospitals then.

Surely, since the the peak of hospital admissions was reached over 3 months ago, since then staff could have been released from covid treatment and available for routine work, provided patients had been allowed to attend. If the remaining staff and their patients were transferred to nightingales then the hospitals could have returned to normal far quicker.

Thats correct a lot money and effort for nothing.

[MadAmster]

Weren't they also going to be staffed by the armed forces?

[swaledale]

Weren't they also going to be staffed by the armed forces?

The armed forces were handling test centres initially. Not sure there ar e enough medics with ICU training to staff them to be honest.


Heres a stat to make one think.

In 1918 Spanish Flu killed 50 million worldwide

Current Covid deaths worldwide just under 800,000.

In 1918 we didn't have the massive movement of people across the world, mostly by air, but within europe by land. Also bear in mind the population of the world is somewhat larger than it was in 1918.

That gives a good idea of the relative risk and that we are being driven by fear rather than a rational assessment of the actual risks.

[ramAnag]

The armed forces were handling test centres initially. Not sure there ar e enough medics with ICU training to staff them to be honest.


Heres a stat to make one think.

In 1918 Spanish Flu killed 50 million worldwide

Current Covid deaths worldwide just under 800,000.

In 1918 we didn't have the massive movement of people across the world, mostly by air, but within europe by land. Also bear in mind the population of the world is somewhat larger than it was in 1918.

That gives a good idea of the relative risk and that we are being driven by fear rather than a rational assessment of the actual risks.

That’s a very fair point Swale, although the Spanish Flu estimates vary wildly - between 17 and 100m - and we are meant to be rather more caring and better equipped to deal with such issues these days.

The seldom mentioned Asian Flu of the fifties is also said to have killed between 1 and 4 million while, possibly more relevantly, ‘Swine Flu’ killed up to half a million just over ten years ago and, tbh, I don’t remember being particularly bothered by that.

Astonishingly HIV/AIDS has killed in the region of 32 million...but I suppose behavioural factors are more relevant in that instance. Or are they...and is it still those who put themselves at risk - in admittedly entirely different ways - who are most in jeopardy?

[mistaram]

The armed forces were handling test centres initially. Not sure there ar e enough medics with ICU training to staff them to be honest.


Heres a stat to make one think.

In 1918 Spanish Flu killed 50 million worldwide

Current Covid deaths worldwide just under 800,000.

In 1918 we didn't have the massive movement of people across the world, mostly by air, but within europe by land. Also bear in mind the population of the world is somewhat larger than it was in 1918.

That gives a good idea of the relative risk and that we are being driven by fear rather than a rational assessment of the actual risks.

Plenty of time yet the Spanish flu lasted for 10years

[ramAnag]

Hmmm...Head of Ofqual resigns...Gavin Williamson nominated for MP of the year. Really?
Houston, we have a problem!