Coronavirus - the political argument

Typical government response. Shortage of PPE? Not our fault it's those foolish NHS staff and carers overusing it.

Some interesting selective quoting there - and putting his words out of context from what he actually said which was -

10:48
Do not overuse PPE, says UK health secretary

There have been cases where medical workers have used more personal protective equipment (PPE) than necessary, the UK health secretary has said, after a doctor's union warned that many doctors were not getting the equipment they need.
The British Medical Association said doctors faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
Matt Hancock told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there was enough personal protective equipment to go around if it was used in line with guidance.
"I don't want to impugn blame on people who have used more PPE than the guidelines suggest because I understand the difficulties in the circumstances," he said.
"What I would say it is very important to use the right PPE and not overuse it."
The health secretary confirmed that 19 NHS workers had died since the start of the outbreak.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "It is quite frankly insulting to imply front line staff are wasting PPE."
Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told Today that no piece of PPE could ever be "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52252981

Seems fair comment to me.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about in respect of point scoring at this time.

Hancock DIDN'T imply front line staff were deliberately wasting PPE and we all know, Hancock too, that no PPE is more precious than a healthcare workers life.

In fact even her quote must have been taken out of context somewhat because it's meaningless just taken as it is.  I didn't hear the discussion but what it seems to me is that Hancock was saying some frontline staff may have at times gone beyond what the (presumably?) NHS guidelines suggest, and thus consequently leaving them that much shorter until the next scheduled delivery.

No-one can blame anyone for wanting to over protect themselves but at the same time the consequences may well be they leave others short later on.

As there are only finite PPE at anyone time it is obviously extremely difficult to strike the right balance.

Just seems to me that some just want to bash the government no matter what - presumably because once we get over this the country will be against them and vote them out ASAP.

Seems to be the same Labour Party thinking under Corbyn about letting the country fall into Brexit under the Conservatives, for it to become a disaster and everybody vote Labour back into power ASAP thereafter.

Too much game playing for me.

Let's stick together, get things sorted, and play the silly point scoring games afterwards.

As for Jenrick it seems on the face of it that he did break his own rules he was giving to us and should suffer the consequences.

I don't doubt all of us would want (and I'm sure some/many do) to go and see our love ones at this time even if it means bending the rules somewhat but in his case (and Calderwood's) the Creaser's wife analogy holds true (that's of course if we discount Messalina).

Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Thanks for posting this, the lack of preparation/impact of a decade cuts to the NHS for this will surely be investigated at some point once this is over.

Can only hope a complete change in approach to public services comes about.

Just seen this and thought it would go some way to refute the suggestion that the government had been deliberately under funding the NHS for the last ten years -


More significant may be higher health spending:
Germany spent €4,271 (£3,744) per person on healthcare (11.1% of gross domestic product - the value of goods and services produced in the country) in 2016
The UK spent €3,566 per person on healthcare (9.7% of GDP) in 2016
The EU average is 9.9% of GDP






https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52234061

Obviously they could have done more but then again something would have to be cut in order to do that within the budget they were working to.

Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Okocha, this is a forum where people give their opinions. If I wanted to read the news I'd visit the BBC website.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

My point was that they clearly didn't campaign strongly to 'Remain' in the referendum and once the country voted Brexit, they didn't actively contribute much if anything to obtain the best deal possible.

Almost if they wanted Brexit under the government/May/Conservatives to be seen to have been badly enacted and leaving them to be swept back into power AFTER Brexit had been delivered.

I've not suggested Labour campaigned to overturn Brexit once the referendum decision was made.

As I say it doesn't matter now.

Cross party collaboration was shut down by May until the very last minute so not sure what they could have contributed.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Okocha, this is a forum where people give their opinions. If I wanted to read the news I'd visit the BBC website.

I prefer to leave this subject open to discussion and debate on here.

You suggest that this forum is for people to give their opinions, yet, oddly, you do not take the opportunity to start the ball rolling.

 We've had enough recently of people not taking their own advice, have we not?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

It states the fact, let alone suggests it.

The reason for that though is simple enough - and why I posted the second table - namely that Germany (EUR351,701m) and France (EUR257,194m) skew the average because of their vast spending compared to all other country's spend bar us.

In fact the second table shows our expenditure per head of population being higher than the EU average and in terms of both tables we spend more than both Italy and Spain do on their inhabitants

What the tables show is that despite everything we spend the third much on healthcare than any other country and almost as much as Spain and Italy combined do.

The mantra that ten years of austerity has ruined the NHS doesn't seem to be supported as such in comparison as to what the majority other EU country's were doing as per this report.

Of course we could have spent more on healthcare but so to we could spend more on everything else too.

At my age and condition I would love the NHS to have had more funding in the last ten years but what has been spent seems to be reasonable and inline with all the other EU country's according to the figures in 2016.

Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Cross party collaboration was shut down by May until the very last minute so not sure what they could have contributed.

I don't recall Labour putting up a viable alternative to the government at the time?

In fact wasn't Labour undergoing it's usual internal battles under Corbyn/Momentum?

Fwiw It was a pity Cameron played needless internal politics to even have the referendum in the first place and equally the Labour had Corbyn heading the opposition since then.

Both as bad as each other to me and why I tend to keep out of politics the best I can.

Fwiw when I was required to study politics the very first lesson given to us, on the very first day was this.

There are only two rules in politics.

1 - To achieve power.
2 - To then remain in power.

It stood me in good stead ever since.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

We are actually spending MORE on healthcare on average - see table two.

We could spend more, yes.

But what should we cut expenditure on instead to do this, education, welfare, the state pension, transport, environment, police - where???

I apologise for my inability to format the table below but these are the actual government expenditure for 2017/18 and can be viewed more clearly here -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

What it does show is that Health accounts for 20% of all expenditure and second only to welfare (24%).

If you were to add in the next two areas of expenditure - State Pensions (13%) and Education (12%) then over two thirds of all government expenditure is accounted for on just those four areas already.

Easy to say any government should spend more money but it is all about a balancing act between needs and the publics willingness to fund them from taxation or build up debt for our children and grandchildren to shoulder the burden of.

Tax summary description
Description of PESA source (See PESA Table 5.2)
Public Sector Expenditure (£bn)
%
Welfare
‘Social Protection’ excluding state pensions
174.4
23.8%

Health
Health
145.8
19.9%

State Pensions
Within ‘Social Protection’ 1
93.8
12.8%

Education
Education
87.8
12.0%

National Debt Interest
Within General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
44.5
6.1%

Defence
Defence
38.7
5.3%

Public Order & Safety
Public Order & Safety
31.6
4.3%

Transport
Economic Affairs, without Business and Industry but shown in more detail in table 5.2
31.2
4.3%

Business & Industry
Economic Affairs, without Transport
21.4
2.9%

Government Administration
Captured under General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
15.2
2.1%

Environment
Environment protection
11.4
1.6%

Culture (e.g. sports, libraries, museums)
Recreation, Culture & Religion
11.8
1.6%

Housing and utilities (e.g. street lights)
Housing & Community Amenities
12.1
1.6%

Overseas Aid
Captured under General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
8.6
1.2%

UK Contributions to EU budget
EU Transactions
5.4
0.7%

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

That is an amazing misuse of statistics. The overwhelming majority of Labour party members and voters were remain supporters. This was demonstrated repeatedly in numerous surveys and opinion polls. It was Corbyn and Momemtum that was out of step with grass roots Labour views.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

It states the fact, let alone suggests it.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

We are actually spending MORE on healthcare on average - see table two.

Sorry, the above confused me - following you now.

If you're looking at comparative spends, you should be looking at similarly sized economies - such as Germany and France, and we spend less per head than either of them.

In answer to your question of how to fund it, we should increase taxes and the size of the budget not cut from elsewhere. More recent polls suggest the majority would be willing to pay more in tax to fund the NHS.

All of this has of course gone out the window now with Coronavirus and the economy is going to look completely different.

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

That is an amazing misuse of statistics. The overwhelming majority of Labour party members and voters were remain supporters. This was demonstrated repeatedly in numerous surveys and opinion polls. It was Corbyn and Momemtum that was out of step with grass roots Labour views.

If i'd said the majority of labour members had voted leave and quoted that statistic as evidence, that would have been a misuse of statistics - what I've said is actually completely accurate as to the source of information (I can't post links, but google the full fact article as per my op if you want to take a look).