Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Richard Scott]

It's almost as though the NHS has been underfunded for at least a decade but the papers won't talk about it because they and the Tories are largely aligned.

NHS has always been underfunded, afraid that's how it is, you'll never get rid of waiting lists etc. that is reality. People do think governments have a bottomless pit of cash, they don't.

 

[SS4]

NHS has always been underfunded, afraid that's how it is, you'll never get rid of waiting lists etc. that is reality. People do think governments have a bottomless pit of cash, they don't.

I think most people know governments don't have a bottomless pit of cash but it's the age old question of what gets priority and who shoulders the burden of tax.

It's my opinion that had the NHS got better funding we'd need less severe lockdowns or the justification for lockdown would be lower.

 

[Yew]

NHS has always been underfunded, afraid that's how it is, you'll never get rid of waiting lists etc. that is reality. People do think governments have a bottomless pit of cash, they don't.

I don't think anyone was advocating for no waiting lists, simply that the idealistic cuts from the tories have made things much more touch-and-go in a normal year, never mind one with additional factors.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't think anyone was advocating for no waiting lists, simply that the idealistic cuts from the tories have made things much more touch-and-go in a normal year, never mind one with additional factors.

But where does the money come from? If more goes to NHS then has to come from cuts to something else. No point saying tax people more as in extreme results in really well off living elsewhere and then no tax revenue from them, people have less disposable income so hospitality suffers and fewer people employed so, again, less tax revenue and more spent on unemployment benefits. Not quite as simple as people think.

 

[C J Snarzell]

On the topic of the NHS - there has not been any reference to the Nightingales recently in the media.

I though these were set up to primarily deal with a rise of Covid cases and provide a 'buffer' with extra contingencies in place.

I know it was previously mention on this forum months ago - the Nightingales provide extra bed and floor space, however there was not enough medical staff to deal with the overspill of patients.

CJ

 

[Yew]

But where does the money come from? If more goes to NHS then has to come from cuts to something else. No point saying tax people more as in extreme results in really well off living elsewhere and then no tax revenue from them, people have less disposable income so hospitality suffers and fewer people employed so, again, less tax revenue and more spent on unemployment benefits. Not quite as simple as people think.

a) waiting lists are shorter, so people have less time off work waiting for treatments, as well as adressing things before they become critical.
b) we don't have events like the last 9 months, or at least they are less severe and the 'savings' could be used to fund the NHS, it doesn't take the cost of many weeks of lockdown to represent a substantial increase in the NHS budget for the century.
c) increased capacity gives more scope for innovation and reduction of the technical debt in the NHS.

Overall, when you're in government, you have to think in the long term (even if you're a short term populist like Johnson), and avoid making false economies.

 

[Richard Scott]

a) waiting lists are shorter, so people have less time off work waiting for treatments, as well as adressing things before they become critical.
b) we don't have events like the last 9 months, or at least they are less severe and the 'savings' could be used to fund the NHS, it doesn't take the cost of many weeks of lockdown to represent a substantial increase in the NHS budget for the century.
c) increased capacity gives more scope for innovation and reduction of the technical debt in the NHS.

Overall, when you're in government, you have to think in the long term (even if you're a short term populist like Johnson), and avoid making false economies.

Agree but this isn't what happens in the real world. Not defending government by any means but the money just isn't there. I work in education and there's constant moaning about underfunding there.

 

[Yew]

Agree but this isn't what happens in the real world. Not defending government by any means but the money just isn't there. I work in education and there's constant moaning about underfunding there.

Yes, because the tories ignore Keynesian economics as it is at odds with their ideological quest to asset-strip the state.

 

[greyman42]

I remember seeing Whittys spreadsheet earlier this year showing some hospitals at capacity at the top. It scared people, of course. But then someone else posted the entire thing that he didn't show in the press conference, and the vast majority of hospitals on the list - 90% or so - were below average capacity.

Should not the impartial media be mentioning these facts on their news channels?

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed it was a major feature of the (now largely forgotten, it seems) 2019 General Election campaign.

Do we remember this story, for example?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/refuses-to-look-at-picture-of-boy-forced-to-sleep-on-hospital-floor




Exactly. The only thing worse than the fact they trotted out the 'protect the NHS' line again, after totally failing to do anything about it, is the fact that so many people have swallowed it and not asked these exact questions.

Don't forget, from next week the NHS will have an extra 350m per week, as promised on the side of a big red bus during the Brexit campaign.

 

[brad465]

On the topic of the NHS - there has not been any reference to the Nightingales recently in the media.

I though these were set up to primarily deal with a rise of Covid cases and provide a 'buffer' with extra contingencies in place.

I know it was previously mention on this forum months ago - the Nightingales provide extra bed and floor space, however there was not enough medical staff to deal with the overspill of patients.

CJ

I recall their dismantling being on a Telegraph front page earlier this week, and they've also recently been investigated by Richard Tice, where he revealed after contacting many different contacts with information on what happened to the ExCel one, its largely been dismantled.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I recall their dismantling being on a Telegraph front page earlier this week, and they've also recently been investigated by Richard Tice, where he revealed after contacting many different contacts with information on what happened to the ExCel one, its largely been dismantled.

What concerns me about that is how much money has been chucked at the Nightingale project before deciding it's a white elephant?

CJ

 

[sjpowermac]

It's perfectly possible to both believe the seriousness of the Covid situation whilst also being aware that we wouldn't be in such a serious situation if the government had been more adequately prepared and the NHS hadn't been suffering from a decade of underinvestment. In fact, once attention shifts from crisis to reflection, I would be surprised if this wasn't a conversation to be had. But how does that help the situation now?

To touch on the "it happens every winter" theme, yes it does. But what we see in examples are the "worst case" examples that can be found at the height of the winter pressures. And they're also predictable pressures. The obvious difference now is we are seeing the same pressure now (if not worse), but the rate of infection and therefore hospitalisation are showing no signs of reducing. With more patients in hospital already compared to the last wave (which also wasn't during winter, so the whole NHS isn't in crisis because it happens every time in winter arguments falls down here) we are in an unprecedented situation.

Finally, I don't understand why these comments suggest that just because the crisis is mostly the governments own failings, it means that all the warnings we are seeing from staff on the ground, hospital trusts, police chiefs etc can therefore be dismissed?

The vulnerable group were never asked to shield. Only the clinically extremely vulnerable. I would argue that the decision to shield was not driven by a desire to reduce the overall rate of infection (that was the purpose of lockdown), but to protect those that would likely die following infection.
By the definition of vulnerable being those who are entitled to the winter flu vaccination, there are approximately 15m people in this category. So approx 1/4 of the population straight away.
Clinically extremely vulnerable has only 1.5m.
People will have different opinions on the cost of tiers for all vs lockdown for vulnerable only, although it may become more acceptable as the vaccine rollout progresses.

Good post.

I think you raise a very important point about underinvestment, but quite so, that’s one for once the dust settles and does little to help us now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2020 ==

Don't forget, from next week the NHS will have an extra 350m per week, as promised on the side of a big red bus during the Brexit campaign.

Very good point!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2020 ==

You're missing the point (and putting words in my mouth). The narrative of the NHS being overwhelmed is used to drive justification for more lockdowns.

The point is that it happens every winter, and COVID is not the main cause but woeful underinvestment by the government in our health service. Even worse, the government banged on about the winter being a crisis point all summer yet seemingly haven't done anything about it, despite clearly having the financial resources (see furlough, test and trace, other eyewateringly expensive contracts...).

Why should the general population have to suffer with huge restrictions on their freedom because of the govermenent's incompetence when the situation isn't exactly any different from an average winter?

I think you will find, as others have subsequently posted, that this year is just a tiny little bit different.


Whilst I’m certainly no fan of the government, I’m at a loss as to what magic wand you wanted them to wave in such a short time to solve the problems of the NHS. Perhaps you can make some suggestions?

I think the notion of getting the Nightingales full staffed with retired doctors and nurses is a complete non-starter (only the most altruistic would come out of retirement to take their chances on a Covid ward).

Beyond that I’m struggling to really see how we could increase capacity in the health service at short notice.

Please don’t get me wrong, on a personal level I’m dreading what is to come in the next weeks (months?).

 

[SS4]

Don't forget, from next week the NHS will have an extra 350m per week, as promised on the side of a big red bus during the Brexit campaign.

Nope, that's been due since 1st February when we left the EU

 

[43096]

All ways round, the hospitals do seem to be filling up rather quickly.

Please forgive the leftie newspaper quote, we cord jacket with elbow patches types tend to get our information there, but it seems the London hospitals now have more Covid 19 patients than during than in April:

UK records its highest number of new Covid infections, with 53,135 cases

Daily increase in infections is new record and considerably higher than Monday’s 41,385

www.theguardian.com

Apologies that the quote uses the forbidden word ‘wave’. Choose why people are there, are you claiming that the hospitals are not under pressure?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2020 ==


All of which might well be true, but what is happening is at significant variance from what the posters I quoted were saying in the summer.

Many thanks for the article, shocking the number of people picking up Covid whilst in hospital.

The NHS is permanently whinging about being under pressure. Cry wolf....

This time of year there are always more people in hospital with the usual seasonal respiratory illnesses (flu etc). But as Covid is transmitted in much the same way as the normal seasonal illnesses, presumably the lockdown measures also reduce the number of patients with seasonal illnesses. So, what's the excess number of patients now compared with a normal winter?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2020 ==

NHS has always been underfunded, afraid that's how it is, you'll never get rid of waiting lists etc. that is reality. People do think governments have a bottomless pit of cash, they don't.

Arguably it isn't underfunded, it's just like all other government departments and is utterly incapable of managing itself.

 

[brad465]

What concerns me about that is how much money has been chucked at the Nightingale project before deciding it's a white elephant?

CJ

I agree, and it certainly should have been subject to much more scrutiny than has been the case, particularly in the media but I haven't heard much/enough of it among other MPs either. If we couldn't staff them in the first wave we still should have worked to fill the 40,000 odd nurse vacancies in the following 9 months; even if we only got a quarter of those in at most it would still have made a big difference.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I seem to remember the actor Lawrence Fox caused outrage and the wrath of Piers Morgan a few weeks back over a remark he made on Twitter about the NHS not being fit for purpose.

When I read the comment I did understand where Fox was coming from in his remark but I felt he didn't word it quite well and he came across as quite insulting.

My own view is the NHS is a National institution kept going by thousands of dedicated hard working staff who are putting their own lives and health at stake everyday.

However, I do feel that the people at the very top of the NHS hierarchy need to review resourcing, planning and funding a little better, but this has been an issue for many many years.

One of my main concerns during the epidemic has been the lack of cancer treatments and the neglect of other priority non-Covid illnesses which need to be catered for.

CJ

 

[sjpowermac]

The NHS is permanently whinging about being under pressure. Cry wolf....

This time of year there are always more people in hospital with the usual seasonal respiratory illnesses (flu etc). But as Covid is transmitted in much the same way as the normal seasonal illnesses, presumably the lockdown measures also reduce the number of patients with seasonal illnesses. So, what's the excess number of patients now compared with a normal winter?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2020 ==


Arguably it isn't underfunded, it's just like all other government departments and is utterly incapable of managing itself.

You are the fifth person to tell me that the NHS should stop whining. I’m greatly reassured by you all.

I see that nobody has really engaged with my initial post in this thread where I quoted the predictions of several forum members who felt back in the summer that there would be no second wave. Oh and on other threads that London had achieved herd immunity back in June. Well, there was one post, that asked me not to use the terms ‘second wave’ or ‘herd immunity’.

All I pointed out is that several times the perceived wisdom of the virus threads has proved to be somewhat wide of the mark.

I notice a huge abscence of virus thread experts on the ‘GWR shortage of train crew thread’, now that would be entertaining if some of you were to bob over there...

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not a Locktivist/Maskivist/Facebook Karen or member of ‘the Furlough Brigade’. I do find it a bit disingenuous though that despite some very informed posts further up the thread you still come up with this tired old trope of the NHS crying wolf.

Did you actually read the post below?

It's perfectly possible to both believe the seriousness of the Covid situation whilst also being aware that we wouldn't be in such a serious situation if the government had been more adequately prepared and the NHS hadn't been suffering from a decade of underinvestment. In fact, once attention shifts from crisis to reflection, I would be surprised if this wasn't a conversation to be had. But how does that help the situation now?

To touch on the "it happens every winter" theme, yes it does. But what we see in examples are the "worst case" examples that can be found at the height of the winter pressures. And they're also predictable pressures. The obvious difference now is we are seeing the same pressure now (if not worse), but the rate of infection and therefore hospitalisation are showing no signs of reducing. With more patients in hospital already compared to the last wave (which also wasn't during winter, so the whole NHS isn't in crisis because it happens every time in winter arguments falls down here) we are in an unprecedented situation.

Finally, I don't understand why these comments suggest that just because the crisis is mostly the governments own failings, it means that all the warnings we are seeing from staff on the ground, hospital trusts, police chiefs etc can therefore be dismissed?

The vulnerable group were never asked to shield. Only the clinically extremely vulnerable. I would argue that the decision to shield was not driven by a desire to reduce the overall rate of infection (that was the purpose of lockdown), but to protect those that would likely die following infection.
By the definition of vulnerable being those who are entitled to the winter flu vaccination, there are approximately 15m people in this category. So approx 1/4 of the population straight away.
Clinically extremely vulnerable has only 1.5m.
People will have different opinions on the cost of tiers for all vs lockdown for vulnerable only, although it may become more acceptable as the vaccine rollout progresses.

 

[farleigh]

In your view, transferring patients from Intensive Care Units in London to Yorkshire isn’t an example of hospitals being overwhelmed?

No.

It is an example of a hospital transfer.

 

[43096]

You are the fifth person to tell me that the NHS should stop whining. I’m greatly reassured by you all.

I never actually said it should whining, I said it permanently whinges.

I see that nobody has really engaged with my initial post in this thread where I quoted the predictions of several forum members who felt back in the summer that there would be no second wave. Oh and on other threads that London had achieved herd immunity back in June. Well, there was one post, that asked me not to use the terms ‘second wave’ or ‘herd immunity’.

All I pointed out is that several times the perceived wisdom of the virus threads has proved to be somewhat wide of the mark.

I notice a huge abscence of virus thread experts on the ‘GWR shortage of train crew thread’, now that would be entertaining if some of you were to bob over there...

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not a Locktivist/Maskivist/Facebook Karen or member of ‘the Furlough Brigade’. I do find it a bit disingenuous though that despite some very informed posts further up the thread you still come up with this tired old trope of the NHS crying wolf.

Did you actually read the post below?

No, got better things to do than to read every post about Covid.

But, having seen it, there is a presumption there that there has been underinvestment. Well, the NHS would say that wouldn't it? This "underinvestment" strikes me as a selective use of statistics. In fact, spending on health has marginally declined as a proportion of GDP in the last 10 years (though it has risen in real terms), but spending has been greater in every one of those 10 years than in the entire previous history of the NHS (graph below from Health spending as a share of GDP remains at lowest level in a decade | The Health Foundation). I rather suspect the truth is that whatever money is chucked at the NHS, it will spend it incredibly inefficiently.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It is an example of a hospital transfer.

Why might that normally happen? For example would such a transfer be arranged, if someone living in Yorkshire took ill whilst in London, so as to be nearer home?

 

[farleigh]

Why might that normally happen? For example would such a transfer be arranged, if someone from Yorkshire took ill whilst in London, so as to be nearer home?

It is a good question.

Can you supply any documented example of it actually happening? How many people have been transferred from London to Yorkshire so far is what I mean?

I await your answer

 

[yorksrob]

We need to be looking at what we're spending on health as a percentage of GDP, in comparison with other developed countries.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It is an example of a hospital transfer.

Why might that normally happen? For example would such a transfer be arranged, if someone living in Yorkshire took ill whilst in London, so as to be nearer home?

It is a good question.

Can you supply any documented example of it actually happening? How many people have been transferred from London to Yorkshire so far is what I mean?

I await your answer.

I've no idea. Was attempting to establish why someone might get transferred from an ICU in London to one in Yorkshire without it necessarily being held up as an example of the NHS being overwhelmed.

 

[farleigh]

No that's fine mate.

I don't think anybody has been moved from London to Yorkshire. It was mentioned a few posts back by another poster as an example of hospitals being overwhelmed. but I think it was made up.
No hard feelings

 

[Laryk]

I never actually said it should whining, I said it permanently whinges.


No, got better things to do than to read every post about Covid.

But, having seen it, there is a presumption there that there has been underinvestment. Well, the NHS would say that wouldn't it? This "underinvestment" strikes me as a selective use of statistics. In fact, spending on health has marginally declined as a proportion of GDP in the last 10 years (though it has risen in real terms), but spending has been greater in every one of those 10 years than in the entire previous history of the NHS (graph below from Health spending as a share of GDP remains at lowest level in a decade | The Health Foundation). I rather suspect the truth is that whatever money is chucked at the NHS, it will spend it incredibly inefficiently.

View attachment 87913

That graph is hardly evidence that the NHS is inefficient just because spending increase (of course it does, with inflation, growing population and an ageing population making it almost a given).

The argument that the NHS is somehow an outlier for inefficiency globally, or that it is actually funded well but spends money unwisely is just not the reality.
Some key points (from 2011-2018):

• Over the last 30 years, Britain’s average GDPEH [GDP Expenditure on Health] is just 6.9%, the lowest of all the Western nations we compared it to.
• Even removing the USA, the UK's Health care spending as a proportion of GDP is below the average of Western nations.
• The UK has 2.8 doctors per 1,000 population compared with an average of 3.6.
• the NHS spends relatively little on [administrative costs], relative to other comparable systems. In 2014, the UK, Portugal and Ireland all devoted 1.5% or less of their government or compulsory health care expenditure to administration. This compares with an average of 3.1%, with 4.1% in France, and 7.9% in the United States.
• The average hospital length of stay in the UK across all conditions is around average among comparable countries
• Overall, the NHS is one of the industrialised world’s most efficient health care systems, and substantially lower cost than other advanced European countries such as France, Germany, Sweden or Switzerland. The Germans spend 30 percent more per person on health care than we do. And since 2010 the NHS has been increasing its productivity faster than the rest of the UK economy.

Conclusions: "The NHS has definite strengths relative to other health systems. It provides unusually good financial protection to the public from the consequences of ill health; it appears to be relatively efficient; and it performs well in managing some long-term conditions. It does all this with an unusually low level of staffing and, in at least some categories, equipment."

"The NHS can only be judged by comparing it with other countries. It achieves proportionately more with relatively less and for that it should be applauded. But as more is demanded of it, it will fail. Britain as a whole needs to appreciate that it gets the NHS on the comparative cheap – and demand that the government at least matches the spending of the other Western nations, or risk losing it forever."

Of course, there will always be examples of poor inefficiency, but the notion that the NHS is unique in it's ability to spend money incredibly inefficiently whatever money is chucked at it, and therefore used as a justification for the underinvestment, is demonstrably false.

We need to be looking at what we're spending on health as a percentage of GDP, in comparison with other developed countries.

some graphs from ONS

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2020 ==

I think we're making roughly the same point.

Possibly, if your point is that by shielding all CEV it wouldn't prevent 15m vulnerable people from contracting Covid and a portion of them requiring hospital treatment. And that if you chose to shield all the vulnerable as well, it's not that far off from a national lockdown, and I suspect even more unpalatable than the current arrangements.
My reply was intended to be a response to the idea that shielding of CEV's can be an alternative to the tiers/lockdown.

 

[sjpowermac]

No that's fine mate.

I don't think anybody has been moved from London to Yorkshire. It was mentioned a few posts back by another poster as an example of hospitals being overwhelmed. but I think it was made up.
No hard feelings

Au contraire.

Doubtless it was just a transfer/happens all the time/doctors and press scaremongering/just for fun/NHS wasting money again/get the retired doctors back/I made it up(!)*

*choose your favourite one. If you or anyone else wishes to reply with one of those reasons, please don’t, I read them all yesterday and whilst they did provide some entertaining reads, particularly all the backslapping as each poster in turn congratulated themselves for adding to the echo chamber, sadly I’m busy today. Thank you

Critically ill patients ‘evacuated’ hundreds of miles as fears grow London could run out of beds

Exclusive: London’s mothballed Nightingale field hospital to be opened next week to help the capital to cope

www.independent.co.uk

Several patients from across Kent have been taken to Plymouth, Southampton, Bristol and Leeds in recent days as the southeast of England has run out of beds as the numbers of coronavirus patients continues to rise.

 

[Yew]

Possibly, if your point is that by shielding all CEV it wouldn't prevent 15m vulnerable people from contracting Covid and a portion of them requiring hospital treatment. And that if you chose to shield all the vulnerable as well, it's not that far off from a national lockdown, and I suspect even more unpalatable than the current arrangements.
My reply was intended to be a response to the idea that shielding of CEV's can be an alternative to the tiers/lockdown.

It is an alternative, one that causes less direct suffering.

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly, if your point is that by shielding all CEV it wouldn't prevent 15m vulnerable people from contracting Covid and a portion of them requiring hospital treatment. And that if you chose to shield all the vulnerable as well, it's not that far off from a national lockdown, and I suspect even more unpalatable than the current arrangements.
My reply was intended to be a response to the idea that shielding of CEV's can be an alternative to the tiers/lockdown.

By shielding all vulnerable people who were required to shield during the first lockdown, you would prevent a decent proportion of them from contracting COVID and requiring hospital treatment.

Given that national lockdown is effectively requiring everyone to get as close to shielding as possible, I don't see how reintroducing shielding for a while could be more unpaletable than lockdown, particularly if we're all heading for tier 4 which is lockdown anyway.

Agree with all the points made regarding the NHS though.

 

[Laryk]

By shielding all vulnerable people who were required to shield during the first lockdown, you would prevent a decent proportion of them from contracting COVID and requiring hospital treatment.

Given that national lockdown is effectively requiring everyone to get as close to shielding as possible, I don't see how reintroducing shielding for a while could be more unpaletable than lockdown, particularly if we're all heading for tier 4 which is lockdown anyway.

Agree with all the points made regarding the NHS though.

Only because in my opinion there's an element of "fairness" around a national lockdown, and those in the shielding category have already had it the worst so far.

In addition, the challenges of ensuring those who are shielding are also shielding from the rest of their household who aren't just "not shielding", but also now free of lockdown restrictions (thus free to spread infection back to the shielding person) would make shielding impossible to be carried out effectively. (Unless the proposal is either a) to move all vulnerable people into a quarantine facility or b) ensure that any household with a vulnerable person also needs to shield.) Which is why I suspect it has to be done in tandem with less freedoms for everyone (which explains why at present shielding of CEV people is only a requirement in Tier 4 areas).