Coronavirus - the political argument

xmiles wrote:On the question of whether the number of deaths could have been reduced if the NHS had been better resourced there are two facts which support my belief that they could. Firstly getting more people more quickly on to ventilators is definitely going to increase their chances of surviving. Secondly as part of their preparation for coping with the crisis hospitals sent elderly patients back to care homes even when they may have had corona virus thus increasing the spread of the disease and the number of deaths.

On the second point to say that "ironically the coronavirus has actually made more beds available and even some nursing staff surplus to need" hardly disproves the fact that the NHS has been systematically underfunded by the Tories over the last 10 years. It also ignores the reality that a lot of people are now going to die because they are not receiving the treatment that they normally would.  

Sluffy wrote:Obviously though these are strange times and the norm is that the NHS and its staff are routinely stretched to breaking point.

Sluffy wrote:

wessy wrote:Look sluffy i admire your attention to detail , but you would do well to remember that not all of us are as technically gifted as you. i did read the other part of the quote you used ,but two years old or not this government as run down the funding on health care.  I really don't want to be part of a running battle over this, as you say we are all entitled to our views and i think i did say that this pandemic would test any government. But does that mean that we can'y hold the government of the day to account.

They have made many well documented mistakes and continue to do so like the mixed messaging this week, It appears now that French and Irish can come and go without quarantine whilst others will be locked down, it'a just piss poor on many levels.

I support the minimum wage and it's socialist values, because it's the correct thing to do, this government opposed it for many years and was forced into it when in bed with the Libdems. 

Anyway when the shit hit the fan this capatilist government turned to socialism to fix the problem how ironic.

The Devil IS in the detail though.

It always is.

I won't debate back and forth with you because you do not wish it and I respect your wish but at the end of the day you have to strip bare any emotions, political allegiances and personal bias you may have and any other baggage you carry around with you if you really want to get close to the truth of why anything happened and the context of why it did.

Anybody can put their own 'spin' on things and that's why socialism and capitalism sees the same thing in completely opposite ways.

Nobody has a monopoly of being correct, it stands to reason therefore that socialism isn't right every time and capitalism wrong - nor visa versa - so clearly if you firmly hold one view all the time then you to must be wrong from time to time also.

Ironically enough I've worked for many years of my life in a political environment but have never been remotely politically motivated myself.  I've come from a working class council house, 'socialist' background to a relative comfortable, 'capitalist', lifestyle, yet would not describe myself as being either. 

I've always found it more natural to 'establish' what is going on rather than 'believe' what I think/am told is going on.

Clearly you are too entrenched in your socialist beliefs to give much credit to capitalism/conservatism, I on the other hand am free of such bias and open to seeing the pro's and con's of both sides.

At the end of the day all we can wish for is for all of us to stay well and to come out of this with all our love ones safely.

And that is what I wish for you and everyone else on here.

Stay safe.

PS Fwiw, France and Ireland are only 'easing' out of lockdown (somewhat similar to what we are doing with a 'roadmap' approach) and many restrictions are still in force there -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52615733
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52509390 a

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - what’s made you limit your response to 20 - 39 year olds? Average retirement age in the NHS is 60 and we already know a large number of healthcare professionals came out of retirement to support the NHS.

How does the death rate of one age group prove that there was no issue with PPE shortage in the NHS?

Surely we should defer to the experts to tell us if this is the case and not cobble together statistics to make assumptions?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Also @Sluffy - great post, very interesting insight.

wessy wrote:I don't for one minute think that you intend to be condescending, but put yourselve in my shoes and re read what you wrote. 

1) Yes the devil is in the detail , what you fail to mention is that like every one else, it is your interpretation of the detail to fit your beliefs, no problem with that but it does not make you right, it is just your opinion.

2) You respect my wishes not to debate i thank you for that, however by taking the moral highground, you leave me with no alternative but to respond. You say that i  have to strip away the bias etc. and insinute that you have no bias whatsever, is that really true? is that even possible. because you do have strong opinions.
I assume you vote. (i don't want to know how)

3) So every one else puts there own spin on things ? except you of course. You really believe that.
 
4) I agree that no one as a monoply on being right all the time, so by my reckoning that also would include you.

5) I think that the government on certain things such as Furlow etc are bang on, I accept that ministers are under extreme pressure, The labour party over recent years have made some awful decisions, of course both parties have strengths and weakness. so to say

 Clearly you are too entrenched in your socialist beliefs to give much credit to capitalism/conservatism, I on the other hand am free of such bias and open to seeing the pro's and con's of both sides. 


Just read that again and reflect on how it sounds to others. Finally i offer you and yours the same curtesy and really do hope that you all remain safe.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - what’s made you limit your response to 20 - 39 year olds? Average retirement age in the NHS is 60 and we already know a large number of healthcare professionals came out of retirement to support the NHS.

How does the death rate of one age group prove that there was no issue with PPE shortage in the NHS?

Surely we should defer to the experts to tell us if this is the case and not cobble together statistics to make assumptions?

Interesting comments as when I posted almost identical details a few days back...

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t20760p960-coronavirus-will-we-survive#404866

...you posted this!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Also @Sluffy - great post, very interesting insight.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t20760p960-coronavirus-will-we-survive#404874

Seems you've changed your tune?

Anyway to remind everyone when I posted the figures, of the age group 20 to 39 only 155 people had died in hospital at that time (the updated figure is now 172) and for 40 to 59 1,761 (now 1,890).

Of the original figures I posted only 28 of the 155 and 207 of the 1,761 (a total of just 235 people) had NO underlying health problems

It simply inconceivable that firstly ALL the deaths of the two age groups in hospital (172 + 1,761 = 1,933) are composed of doctors and nurses and secondly anything other than a fraction of that number - around 1 in 8 based on the original stats - had no existing underlying health problem.

Clearly any employer is obligated to protect any employee with underlying health issues and I would believe the NHS to be more aware of this (particularly at this time) than perhaps every other employer in the country!

So then it is statistically significant to note that the most deaths at hospital occurring for those who are between the ages of 20 to 59 are around 250 people (172 + 1,890 = 2,062 and 1 in 8 amounts to more or less 250) and that almost certainly that total is NOT composed of solely doctors an nurses.

The lack of PPE may very well have resulted in a number of deaths but nowhere near what you or anyone else seems to believe there may have been and as I have already said even one death caused by this is one too many.

The reality seems to be that any absence of PPE may well have led to doctors and nurses catching Covid-19 but only a very small percentage of those have actually gone on to die as per the NHS's own statistics.

I'm not trying to be clever or prove a point, I'm simply pointing out that their own official statistics seem to disprove what you clearly believe.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What? We’re talking about PPE supply to the NHS, those death rates are for the country as a whole. ‘In hospitals’ doesn’t mean hospital staff - you’ve got the complete wrong end of the stick here, so drop the condescending attitude.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m well aware the statistics you quote are only for hospital deaths thanks.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What? We’re talking about PPE supply to the NHS, those death rates are for the country as a whole. ‘In hospitals’ doesn’t mean hospital staff - you’ve got the complete wrong end of the stick here, so drop the condescending attitude.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Think anyone who has the time to read your posts here can see that the statistics you have chosen to use in no way disprove my opinion, or the testimony of experts that lack of PPE has had a negative effect on the NHS.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Does it need to get to additional deaths to prove that the NHS wasn't as prepared as it should/could have been with proper funding?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m really not sure why you’re so desperate to claim otherwise.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - I've re read your post a few times this morning. Still no idea what you're getting at. My original point around the NHS was that additional deaths cannot be the only metric determining whether the health service was as prepared as it could or should have been. 

Not getting dragged into your other point, I'm well aware you were talking about hospital deaths. My point was I thought you were suggesting those metrics were only for NHS workers - hence I clarified with 'country as a whole' - maybe i should have also included 'hospital deaths for the country as a whole' but didn't realise we'd got to that level of pedantry.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Wait, think I've cracked it.

I haven't said anywhere lack of PPE has caused excess deaths in the NHS - not possible for me to know that (or you).

But a lack of PPE is more likely to lead to a healthcare worker being infected, meaning they can't come to work for at least 2 weeks - putting extra strain on the service and negatively impacting their response.

How can you possibly be arguing against that? And why do you think you know better than the experts on this?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The NHS has stood up well - the government and NHS deserve massive credit for increasing capacity so quickly. Does it need to get to additional deaths to prove that the NHS wasn't as prepared as it should/could have been with proper funding? Don't think so personally, but it's more hypothetical at that point and will need a proper investigation.

I do think cuts to social care and PPE stockpiling have had a demonstrable effect though, as has the governments failure to resolve the PPE shortages. This is a clear failing.

Sluffy wrote:I've read your posts as saying extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus.  You've been consistent on that point for many weeks now.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I've read your posts as saying extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus.  You've been consistent on that point for many weeks now.

Post where I've said that extra NHS deaths have been caused by a lack of PPE, or shut up. Can't be bothered with your rubbish today, my point is perfectly clear - additional deaths don't prove or disprove whether a lack of PPE has had an effect.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The NHS has stood up well - the government and NHS deserve massive credit for increasing capacity so quickly. Does it need to get to additional deaths to prove that the NHS wasn't as prepared as it should/could have been with proper funding? Don't think so personally, but it's more hypothetical at that point and will need a proper investigation.

I do think cuts to social care and PPE stockpiling have had a demonstrable effect though, as has the governments failure to resolve the PPE shortages. This is a clear failing.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - I've re read your post a few times this morning. Still no idea what you're getting at. My original point around the NHS was that additional deaths cannot be the only metric determining whether the health service was as prepared as it could or should have been. 

Not getting dragged into your other point, I'm well aware you were talking about hospital deaths. My point was I thought you were suggesting those metrics were only for NHS workers - hence I clarified with 'country as a whole' - maybe i should have also included 'hospital deaths for the country as a whole' but didn't realise we'd got to that level of pedantry.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Wait, think I've cracked it.

I haven't said anywhere lack of PPE has caused excess deaths in the NHS - not possible for me to know that (or you).

But a lack of PPE is more likely to lead to a healthcare worker being infected, meaning they can't come to work for at least 2 weeks - putting extra strain on the service and negatively impacting their response.

How can you possibly be arguing against that? And why do you think you know better than the experts on this?

I've read your posts as saying extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus.  You've been consistent on that point for many weeks now.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The NHS has stood up well - the government and NHS deserve massive credit for increasing capacity so quickly. Does it need to get to additional deaths to prove that the NHS wasn't as prepared as it should/could have been with proper funding? Don't think so personally, but it's more hypothetical at that point and will need a proper investigation.

I do think cuts to social care and PPE stockpiling have had a demonstrable effect though, as has the governments failure to resolve the PPE shortages. This is a clear failing.

Are we in agreement about that?

If so how and where have these extra deaths manifested themselves from if the government had sufficiently funded the NHS and had sufficient PPE for everyone?  Can this question can even be quantified?

Well I believe it can.

The reason why I believe it can is because there is no known cure for Covid-19 and that gives you a constant - not a variable - in order to work to.

Therefore we can examine the effect of this decade of underfunding and insufficient PPE's you state have caused the extra deaths to those who have died.

First we look at what extra funding would have resulted in to the NHS and apply them to how they would have saved more lives than if they had not as is the present case.

Funding would have allowed more recruitment of doctors and nurses - but as there is no known cure for Covid-19, a million more doctors and nurses would not have been able to save even a single life than what has occurred because the virus is killing irrespective of the care (the best care in the world even) that they can give them.  All any doctor or nurse can do is to be with them when they unfortunately die sadly.

So that wouldn't have helped the situation even if the government hadn't had cut a single penny from NHS budgets over the proceeding ten years.

Similarly no amount of beds, equipment or drugs being purchased for the NHS would have helped either because existing beds and equipment have not been swamped by need (although it was thought it might - hence the Nightingale Hospitals that have not been used) and that being there is no existing cure for Covid-19 then no amount of extra drug procurement would have saved a single extra life from it than what has occurred either.

The last element of PPE is a little less black and white on this issue but an answer can be found in the hospital stats and the fact the virus clearly targets those who are aged 60 and over (in fact I've read other stats where there is even a finer margin than that which shows the acceleration point of the virus to be from 64 and over age group - but let us leave it with our own published NHS stats to work to, to make everything consistent throughout).

Not only does the virus disproportionally kill more in the age group 60 and over (92% of all hospital deaths) but if you dig down further into the stats it shows that nearly all who have died have underlying conditions (for instance for the age groups 59 and under (8% of all hospital deaths, just 1 in 8 DIDN'T have any underlying conditions and in rough figures accounted for just 250 deaths recorded.

So back to the question of NHS PPE inadequacy and did it lead to extra deaths?

As it would be clearly a requirement of the NHS's legal responsibility as an employer to protect its vulnerable employees, then it would be highly unlikely (though not impossible) to believe that only employees with no underlying health conditions would be on the front line fighting the virus, thus the ones requiring PPE would be in the category of being 59 year old or less with no underlying age condition.

As we have seen there have only been 250 deaths in this category in the whole country - and so it is safe to assume that not all of these would be the doctors and nurses fighting Covid-19 in less than adequate PPE protection.

So yes it is possible that some extra deaths may have occurred due to insufficient PPE kit at the onset of the virus and procurement thereafter - being 250 maximum but much less than that in reality.

So to return to your original premise 'extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus', I believe that to be a false assertion/assumption from you and proved it so, with the proviso that sadly a handful of deaths may have resulted from inadequate PPE provision.

As for your additional point "a lack of PPE is more likely to lead to a healthcare worker being infected, meaning they can't come to work for at least 2 weeks - putting extra strain on the service and negatively impacting their response", then yes that is obviously fair comment but as we have seen above with doctors and nurses, they could not have any influence on the death rate as there is no known cure for Covid-19.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Does 'demonstrable' mean 'additional deaths' in Slough?

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy - I've re read your post a few times this morning. Still no idea what you're getting at. My original point around the NHS was that additional deaths cannot be the only metric determining whether the health service was as prepared as it could or should have been. 

Not getting dragged into your other point, I'm well aware you were talking about hospital deaths. My point was I thought you were suggesting those metrics were only for NHS workers - hence I clarified with 'country as a whole' - maybe i should have also included 'hospital deaths for the country as a whole' but didn't realise we'd got to that level of pedantry.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Wait, think I've cracked it.

I haven't said anywhere lack of PPE has caused excess deaths in the NHS - not possible for me to know that (or you).

But a lack of PPE is more likely to lead to a healthcare worker being infected, meaning they can't come to work for at least 2 weeks - putting extra strain on the service and negatively impacting their response.

How can you possibly be arguing against that? And why do you think you know better than the experts on this?

I've read your posts as saying extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus.  You've been consistent on that point for many weeks now.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The NHS has stood up well - the government and NHS deserve massive credit for increasing capacity so quickly. Does it need to get to additional deaths to prove that the NHS wasn't as prepared as it should/could have been with proper funding? Don't think so personally, but it's more hypothetical at that point and will need a proper investigation.

I do think cuts to social care and PPE stockpiling have had a demonstrable effect though, as has the governments failure to resolve the PPE shortages. This is a clear failing.

Are we in agreement about that?

If so how and where have these extra deaths manifested themselves from if the government had sufficiently funded the NHS and had sufficient PPE for everyone?  Can this question can even be quantified?

Well I believe it can.

The reason why I believe it can is because there is no known cure for Covid-19 and that gives you a constant - not a variable - in order to work to.

Therefore we can examine the effect of this decade of underfunding and insufficient PPE's you state have caused the extra deaths to those who have died.

First we look at what extra funding would have resulted in to the NHS and apply them to how they would have saved more lives than if they had not as is the present case.

Funding would have allowed more recruitment of doctors and nurses - but as there is no known cure for Covid-19, a million more doctors and nurses would not have been able to save even a single life than what has occurred because the virus is killing irrespective of the care (the best care in the world even) that they can give them.  All any doctor or nurse can do is to be with them when they unfortunately die sadly.

So that wouldn't have helped the situation even if the government hadn't had cut a single penny from NHS budgets over the proceeding ten years.

Similarly no amount of beds, equipment or drugs being purchased for the NHS would have helped either because existing beds and equipment have not been swamped by need (although it was thought it might - hence the Nightingale Hospitals that have not been used) and that being there is no existing cure for Covid-19 then no amount of extra drug procurement would have saved a single extra life from it than what has occurred either.

The last element of PPE is a little less black and white on this issue but an answer can be found in the hospital stats and the fact the virus clearly targets those who are aged 60 and over (in fact I've read other stats where there is even a finer margin than that which shows the acceleration point of the virus to be from 64 and over age group - but let us leave it with our own published NHS stats to work to, to make everything consistent throughout).

Not only does the virus disproportionally kill more in the age group 60 and over (92% of all hospital deaths) but if you dig down further into the stats it shows that nearly all who have died have underlying conditions (for instance for the age groups 59 and under (8% of all hospital deaths, just 1 in 8 DIDN'T have any underlying conditions and in rough figures accounted for just 250 deaths recorded.

So back to the question of NHS PPE inadequacy and did it lead to extra deaths?

As it would be clearly a requirement of the NHS's legal responsibility as an employer to protect its vulnerable employees, then it would be highly unlikely (though not impossible) to believe that only employees with no underlying health conditions would be on the front line fighting the virus, thus the ones requiring PPE would be in the category of being 59 year old or less with no underlying age condition.

As we have seen there have only been 250 deaths in this category in the whole country - and so it is safe to assume that not all of these would be the doctors and nurses fighting Covid-19 in less than adequate PPE protection.

So yes it is possible that some extra deaths may have occurred due to insufficient PPE kit at the onset of the virus and procurement thereafter - being 250 maximum but much less than that in reality.

So to return to your original premise 'extra deaths have been caused by the government because they underfunded the NHS and did not have sufficient stocks of PPE in the years leading up to the outbreak of Coronavirus', I believe that to be a false assertion/assumption from you and proved it so, with the proviso that sadly a handful of deaths may have resulted from inadequate PPE provision.

As for your additional point "a lack of PPE is more likely to lead to a healthcare worker being infected, meaning they can't come to work for at least 2 weeks - putting extra strain on the service and negatively impacting their response", then yes that is obviously fair comment but as we have seen above with doctors and nurses, they could not have any influence on the death rate as there is no known cure for Covid-19.

Your whole argument depends upon one fallacy. You state that "The reason why I believe it can is because there is no known cure for Covid-19 and that gives you a constant - not a variable - in order to work to." If this were true it would mean that as soon as you caught the virus the outcome - whether you lived or died - was predetermined regardless of any medical intervention. This is simply not true. Whilst there is no cure medical intervention (oxygen, ventilation, etc) can and does make a difference to the outcome otherwise what is the point of providing any medical support.

In addition you conveniently overlook the deaths that will result from underfunded NHS resources being diverted away from operations and other procedures to deal with the virus. Not all the excess deaths are directly due to the corona virus.

Finally please don't patronise me and tell me that "you again failed to read all I wrote on my original post".