# Protect the NHS, part 2. Reduce avoidable hospital admissions.



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

I'm sure we all watched the BoJo speech yesterday with dismay, but a feeling of inevitability, as he set out the re-introduction of national stiffer restrictions? Personally I found it quite shocking as he described the prospect of medical staff being overwhelmed and forced to decide which patients to treat while others have to be allowed to die! It was also alarming that this situation was potentially only a few weeks away.

Obviously, if the data analysis is sound, we must act now to avoid this. Nobody can really argue with that? Something that was stressed during the announcement was that we, the population, should keep our existing NHS appointments, continue current treatment and medication and seek medical help for new conditions or problems in the normal way for the time being. Essentially, business as usual at the NHS, but stay at home to reduce the CV spread and impact.

Today a cycling buddy fell off his bike. No one else involved, just a mistake on his part or maybe some oil on the wet road and luckily he walked away and called his wife to pick him up. However, this could easily have had a different outcome and resulted in hospitalisation. This has reminded me of the last Covid spike crisis in the spring when a lot of activity and sports enthusiasts cut right back on the amount and level of activity to reduce the chance of being hospitalised due to avoidable injuries and therefore avoid being a burden to the NHS at a critical moment.

Todays incident has reminded me that maybe it is time to revisit this strategy? Nobody ever really intends to injure themselves this way, but we all have an accepted level of risk, chances we are happy to take, or expose ourselves to risk through inattention or lack of foresight.

As cyclists is it again time we proactively reduce our exposure to injury risk in order to reduce avoidable hospitalisations?


----------



## rogerzilla (1 Nov 2020)

I always minimise my risk because I don't like getting hurt.


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (1 Nov 2020)

So, seven months after a three week lockdown " To protect the NHS" we now have a four week lockdown "To protect the NHS".
What has all the sacrifice this year been for? We are no further forward, but as long as we protect the NHS all is fine. The country can fall apart and people can die through lack of care and attention that NHS was set up to provide. The economy is going to be in ruins and countless thousands will be out of work. But the NHS will still be there sucking countless £millions but not giving any care to those that need it. 

Yes, it's a good system.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (1 Nov 2020)

I think such a proposal needs data to back it up. 

1. what is the overall load on the NHS from accidents as a proportion of total?
2. what are the relative risks of various activities that contribute. 

I'd wager that 1 is actually quite small and 2 has DIY, motor vehicles and joggers above cyclists, and our risk is small enough to be a non issue. But I'm only guessing. I'm sure the data is out there to find.


----------



## potsy (1 Nov 2020)

I promise not to ride any of my bikes until we are out of lockdown


----------



## HLaB (1 Nov 2020)

Never listened to Bo Jo myself. Anyway there would be a greater burden on the NHS if you got unfit. Even in the short term getting unfit could lower your ability to fight the c thing that's not cancer. Nobody wants to fall off, just be sensible about it 👍


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> I think such a proposal needs data to back it up.
> 
> 1. what is the overall load on the NHS from accidents as a proportion of total?
> 2. what are the relative risks of various activities that contribute.
> ...


Small numbers and small risks maybe, but definitely not insignificant. It might be a slightly emotional way to view the debate, but what if you are the one that takes that bed and results in another patient having to forego the lifesaving treatment? Individual cases do not generally make for good policy, but if a few 100 injury admissions due to outdoor/sport/cycling related activities can be avoided each week across the country then that must translate into saved lives in a capacity crunch situation?


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> So, seven months after a three week lockdown " To protect the NHS" we now have a four week lockdown "To protect the NHS".
> What has all the sacrifice this year been for? We are no further forward, but as long as we protect the NHS all is fine. The country can fall apart and people can die through lack of care and attention that NHS was set up to provide. The economy is going to be in ruins and countless thousands will be out of work. But the NHS will still be there sucking countless £millions but not giving any care to those that need it.
> 
> Yes, it's a good system.


No surprise there then


----------



## Drago (1 Nov 2020)

I always follow my training and my drills. The NHS need not worry.


----------



## Cymro74 (1 Nov 2020)

NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years, and now accounts for ever growing proportions of public spending. Yet 7 months later and with unlimited additional cash they still can't do basic things like test and trace or GP appointments. For most of the year we haven't had a functioning health service, just a National Covid Service to manage a disease which is low risk for most people. Turning their backs on all other health conditions is a national disaster created entirely by the NHS. Within a couple of years Covid will look irrelevant compared to the excess deaths from other causes, and NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.


----------



## BoldonLad (1 Nov 2020)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> So, seven months after a three week lockdown " To protect the NHS" we now have a four week lockdown "To protect the NHS".
> What has all the sacrifice this year been for? We are no further forward, but as long as we protect the NHS all is fine. The country can fall apart and people can die through lack of care and attention that NHS was set up to provide. The economy is going to be in ruins and countless thousands will be out of work. But the NHS will still be there sucking countless £millions but not giving any care to those that need it.
> 
> Yes, it's a good system.



+1


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (1 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.


NHS managers are busy protecting the knighthoods that they feel they deserve for successfully dealing with this situation. And who will decide on how effective they have been? NHS managers of course.


----------



## gavgav (1 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years, and now accounts for ever growing proportions of public spending. Yet 7 months later and with unlimited additional cash they still can't do basic things like test and trace or GP appointments. For most of the year we haven't had a functioning health service, just a National Covid Service to manage a disease which is low risk for most people. Turning their backs on all other health conditions is a national disaster created entirely by the NHS. Within a couple of years Covid will look irrelevant compared to the excess deaths from other causes, and NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.


Absolute garbage. For a start, Serco run Test and Trace, not the NHS and secondly GP practices are independent organisations, not run by the NHS. Try working in the NHS and you’ll realise what a shoot show we have to put up with.

We were INSTRUCTED by the government to cancel all elective surgery, no choice in the matter. Now, after the experience of wave 1, they appear to be letting us run it locally again and we have the knowledge of what areas we can keep running, and what areas need to stop. Believe you me, there are areas that need to stop, to enable staff to be redeployed to help with Covid. And these are staff who are mentally and physically exhausted, but still they keep going. They also don’t want the applause, etc, or the adulation, they do it because it’s their job to be on the front line.


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years


Not arguing with that. But this is not a thread about that topic.

The question is, given where we are now, regardless of fault or mistakes that got us here, should we once again make the safe choice and try to actively minimise the chance of injuries and hospitalisation? I'm not saying don't exercise, just make sensible choices like going for a road ride instead of tearing across moorland and mountain tracks on an MTB, or switch off your Strava and forget and PBs etc? Just tone it down a bit to play it safe, small changes can make a big difference.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (1 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Small numbers and small risks maybe, but definitely not insignificant. It might be a slightly emotional way to view the debate, but what if you are the one that takes that bed and results in another patient having to forego the lifesaving treatment? Individual cases do not generally make for good policy, but if a few 100 injury admissions due to outdoor/sport/cycling related activities can be avoided each week across the country then that must translate into saved lives in a capacity crunch situation?



Maybe. 

But maybe foreswearing DIY and driving would make far more difference. Needs data.


----------



## gavgav (1 Nov 2020)

Back on topic, cycling pretty much got me through the depression of the first lockdown, not long rides, but regular hour rides. I’m going to have to motivate myself to get out in the less desirable weather again, now, to help with my Mental Health over the next however many weeks this could take.


----------



## biggs682 (1 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> I promise not to ride any of my bikes until we are out of lockdown


Well done @potsy 
Bravo and well said @I like Skol I have also decided to do the same as previous lockdown and adopt the turbo again


----------



## kingrollo (1 Nov 2020)

Doesn't bear close scrunity. Are we going to tell people not to drive cars and motorcycles ? - are we going to stop people doing DIY ?

Where do you draw the line ?

I cycle in part to counter the damage asthma did to my lungs as a kid - keep the weight off and keep the rest of my CV system healthy. I don't believe I have been asked to halt that.

We haven't been told to stop cycling.


----------



## Tripster (1 Nov 2020)

No different to most of the world at the moment. I have mates in France & Spain and I am in Italy and all under curfews, lockdowns and issues managing with Health service. UK doing nothing different to rest of Europe


----------



## Randomnerd (1 Nov 2020)

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-casualties-2018-vital-statistics-cycle-campaigning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4134074.stm

Some stats


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Are we going to tell people not to drive cars and motorcycles ?


We have been asked to stay at home and only make essential journeys for food or work, or did I miss something?


----------



## roubaixtuesday (1 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> We have been asked to stay at home and only make essential journeys for food or work, or did I miss something?



Yes, also ok to go out for exercise


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Yes, also ok to go out for exercise


In a car or motorcycle?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Yes, also ok to go out for exercise



Specifically unlimited and often as you want


----------



## Phil Fouracre (1 Nov 2020)

To answer the OP - where do you draw the line? Are we more of a risk to the NHS than anyone else? As others have said, how do you categorise risk of accidents?


----------



## steverob (1 Nov 2020)

During the first lockdown, I did not have use of my outdoor bike for a long period due to a mechanical that I could not fix and my LBS were so busy that I could not get an appointment. But as I had an indoor trainer and access to Zwift, I was okay for exercise, or so I thought.

But within a month I was starting to go stir crazy; working from home full time, barely getting outside (only to walk to my local shop once a week maybe) and I quickly realised that for my own mental health I needed to get away from these four walls and understood how much I was missing my bike rides.

This time round, I will definitely be riding outside. Maybe not very long rides, but long enough that it’s doing my health good both physically and mentally.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Nov 2020)

I will be riding for as long as we are allowed to. With my regular cycling buddies we have decided we will take it in turns to ride together that is 1+1.

The only things I have left to do in my life are domestic duties and cycling. I've spent the last seven months following the guidelines, regulations, laws or whatever one chooses to call them to the letter and beyond.

I am allowed to exercise outside for as long as I wish every day and I will do so. Everything else has been taken away, to suggest I should reduce or stop cycling to help protect the NHS is ludicrous.

Without cycling I would already be in the depths of misery.

What other forms of exercise does the OP suggest should reduce or stop to protect the NHS?


----------



## Wobblers (1 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> We have been asked to stay at home and only make essential journeys for food or work, or did I miss something?



I remember well the last lockdown: particularly the way that a fraction of motorists deemed that essential journeys involved treating the roads as racetracks. In fact, while the number of vehicles fell sharply, the number of RTCs did not. Perhaps we ought to start there?

(And, yes, I will be taking things somewhat more carefully - but then, with the damp roads, wet leaves and treacherous conditions that autumn always brings, I always do. Autumn is never the time to be chasing personal bests.... )


----------



## lane (1 Nov 2020)

PaulSB said:


> I will be riding for as long as we are allowed to. With my regular cycling buddies we have decided we will take it in turns to ride together that is 1+1.
> 
> The only things I have left to do in my life are domestic duties and cycling. I've spent the last seven months following the guidelines, regulations, laws or whatever one chooses to call them to the letter and beyond.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## weareHKR (1 Nov 2020)

steverob said:


> During the first lockdown, I did not have use of my outdoor bike for a long period due to a mechanical that I could not fix and my LBS were so busy that I could not get an appointment. But as I had an indoor trainer and access to Zwift, I was okay for exercise, or so I thought.
> 
> But within a month I was starting to go stir crazy; working from home full time, barely getting outside (only to walk to my local shop once a week maybe) and I quickly realised that for my own mental health I needed to get away from these four walls and understood how much I was missing my bike rides.
> 
> This time round, I will definitely be riding outside. Maybe not very long rides, but long enough that it’s doing my health good both physically and mentally.


+1


----------



## I like Skol (1 Nov 2020)

Just to be clear, let me say it AGAIN. I am not proposing that we should stop cycling, just that we should take the safer option where there is a choice. I am also not singling out just cyclists as the only group that should consider this, but as this is a cycling forum it seems reasonable to discuss it in relation to cycling?


----------



## dan_bo (1 Nov 2020)

Skol don't waste your time this place is teeming with pillocks.


----------



## classic33 (1 Nov 2020)

Maybe I've been lucky, but I've only needed hospital treatment once because of what happened whilst cycling. 

I got hit by a car, being driven by a driver who's final defense was he thought I was a bus.


----------



## itboffin (1 Nov 2020)

i've just renewed my Rouvy 6 month subscription using this code for 33% off Meghil20 makes 6 months family sub for $67.20 USD

and no i dont work for Rouvy or get any kind of kickbacks I just found it to be a good easy to use realistic online tool, i still and will continue to ride outdoors doing 1 hour per week day and 3 ish at the weather is the weather is suitable, as for turbo training i cant bare anything more than an hour regardless of software or movies etc ts just boring hot and too hard. I ride a bike because i love the countryside views not a gym workout.


----------



## Johnsco (1 Nov 2020)

During the first lock-down I got my old Carlton running that had laid dormant in the garage for over 30 years.
Best thing I've done in years.
The second was joining Cycle Chat.


----------



## Sharky (2 Nov 2020)

Slightly OT, but when you go out for a ride, do you carry a face mask? I only do short rides and assume that I will get round without stopping but once or thrice I have come to grief and needed assistance. So should really be wearing a mask in these situations. 
I think from now on, will keep a face mask in my tool bag.


----------



## lazybloke (2 Nov 2020)

a


Darius_Jedburgh said:


> So, seven months after a three week lockdown " To protect the NHS" we now have a four week lockdown "To protect the NHS".
> What has all the sacrifice this year been for? We are no further forward, but as long as we protect the NHS all is fine. The country can fall apart and people can die through lack of care and attention that NHS was set up to provide. The economy is going to be in ruins and countless thousands will be out of work. But the NHS will still be there sucking countless £millions but not giving any care to those that need it.
> 
> Yes, it's a good system.


Rather than lockdown, would you prefer to allow the ever increasing infection rate to overwhelm the NHS to the point that patients with treatable diseases can no longer be admitted and are sent away to suffer at home?
Surely better to lockdown so that the R rate is lowered, and hospitals canavoid being overwhelmed.

What would you propose instead of a lockdown? Handwashing, social-distancing, masks, Test & Trace, a rule of six, and three tiers of restrictions haven't worked - do you have any better ideas? Which patients would you proritise when there's a waiting list outside the hospital? Who would you choose to live or die?


Yes, the costs of managing Covid19 are enormous, but a sick economy will recover in time. Death isn't quite so reversible.


----------



## weareHKR (2 Nov 2020)

Sharky said:


> Slightly OT, but when you go out for a ride, do you carry a face mask?


Tbh I did think about this before the first lockdown, purely because I felt an increase in traffic pollution. 
Although I never did anything about it at the time, during the first lockdown the air appeared to get a lot cleaner, for obvious reasons. 
However, I probably think it's a good time to start using a mask personally.


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Not arguing with that. But this is not a thread about that topic.
> 
> The question is, given where we are now, regardless of fault or mistakes that got us here, should we once again make the safe choice and try to actively minimise the chance of injuries and hospitalisation? I'm not saying don't exercise, just make sensible choices like going for a road ride instead of tearing across moorland and mountain tracks on an MTB, or switch off your Strava and forget and PBs etc? Just tone it down a bit to play it safe, small changes can make a big difference.


Thanks for clarifying.
I feared from your initial post you were suggesting that we don't go out for rides and instead do our civic duty by sitting on the sofa glugging wine and eating crisps. This hell is a major threat to physical and mental health, cycling isn't and will get a lot of folk through it.
During the last deep lockdown it also allowed me to maintain my food supplies while minimising contact with others.
I will be going out for a fair few day rides.


----------



## screenman (2 Nov 2020)

Sharky said:


> Slightly OT, but when you go out for a ride, do you carry a face mask? I only do short rides and assume that I will get round without stopping but once or thrice I have come to grief and needed assistance. So should really be wearing a mask in these situations.
> I think from now on, will keep a face mask in my tool bag.



Always carry a mask, even if I am going for a walk across the fields behind my house, it is not as if they are big and heavy.


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Nov 2020)

classic33 said:


> Maybe I've been lucky, but I've only needed hospital treatment once because of what happened whilst cycling.
> 
> I got hit by a car, being driven by a driver who's final defense was he thought I was a bus.


Quite. In a quarter of a century of being back into cycling I have had no serious incidents, despite doing a lot of that in london, which many folk thing mad. Have had a few other close shaves though.
Almost electrocuted myself as a kid fiddling with a light fitting.
Sitting in my car eating a butty had a branch the size of a large large tree itself fall straight towards me and crush several cars before falling just short of me.
Damn dangerous things trees. As are mad dogs, sex, corned beef tins, slippy pavement leaves, junk telly, the politics and current affairs bit at times, any number of things.
Gotta go, busy rewiring a plug, scoffing a box of pringles, glugging a cheeky red while perusing various passive aggressive moralising wind-up merchants on the burning issues of the day.


----------



## Andy in Germany (2 Nov 2020)

As others have said, if we're about minimising risk I think we need to think about motor vehicle traffic, which in Germany causes about 12 deaths a day directly, not including the damage caused indirectly through pollution, which can directly increase people's risk of being adversely affected by Covid.

Secondly, I'd suggest we stop sales of Alcohol, as many call-outs and hospital admissions are due to alcohol abuse: that alone would probably tip the balance in favour of the NHS.

Finally, stop sales of cigarettes and tobacco because the last thing we need is people deliberately damaging their lungs when we have a respiratory disease going around.

As to cycling: I'm in a high(ish) risk group from C-19 because I have Asthma. in the years BC (Before cycling) I would have several colds a year; the ensuing cough would last up to three months and I'd have to go to the doctors several times for treatment because I'd often develop bronchitis.
When I started cycling this dropped dramatically to about three colds a year which would last a maximum of a month, Bronchitis was now an annual occurrence, and generally required less treatment from the doctor.
When I started cycling longer distances this dramatic drop repeated and now a "bad" year means one cold, which is usually gone within a month and requires minimal intervention.

In other words, cycling has helped my immune system in dealing with respiratory diseases and viruses. if I stop or even reduce my cycling, I dramatically increase my risk of catching C-19 and requiring hospital treatment.

I know that this won't be quite as dramatic for other people, but immune systems generally work the same, so I'm not convinced it makes sense to tell people to reduce a relatively safe activity which is highly beneficial for our immunity (to say nothing of psychological health), at least until we have dealt with other riskier and more damaging activities.

[ETA: I'm aware that I'm also very fortunate: I rarely have to ride on busy roady and most of the time I'm riding on traffic free cycle lanes or access roads, so arguably the risks I take are much smaller than many others on this forum...]


----------



## rogerzilla (2 Nov 2020)

With pubs closed, the lack of drink-related injuries clogging A&E every Friday and Saturday should free up capacity there.


----------



## PaulSB (2 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Just to be clear, let me say it AGAIN. I am not proposing that we should stop cycling, just that we should take the safer option where there is a choice. I am also not singling out just cyclists as the only group that should consider this, but as this is a cycling forum it seems reasonable to discuss it in relation to cycling?



I don't take risks on my bike. Can you explain what this safer option is please?

You seem to be implying cycling is inherently dangerous which it is not.


----------



## PaulSB (2 Nov 2020)

Sharky said:


> Slightly OT, but when you go out for a ride, do you carry a face mask? I only do short rides and assume that I will get round without stopping but once or thrice I have come to grief and needed assistance. So should really be wearing a mask in these situations.
> I think from now on, will keep a face mask in my tool bag.


I always wear a buff and have been using this for the very limited time I need one.

Any other situation and I carry one of the several my wife made.


----------



## Drago (2 Nov 2020)

PaulSB said:


> You seem to be implying cycling is inherently dangerous which it is not.


It's certainly liable be less dangerous to the NHS than not exercising at all.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2020)

I'm investing in bubble wrap


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Nov 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> With pubs closed, the lack of drink-related injuries clogging A&E every Friday and Saturday should free up capacity there.


well as long as folk don't fall down the stairs on the way to bed.
I had the idea that there had been a big jump in alcohol consumption, at least at the more problematical end. Folk home drinking.


----------



## straas (2 Nov 2020)

Wouldn't there be more evidence behind having not had DST this year? (in terms of accident prevention)


----------



## oldworld (2 Nov 2020)

At least you've got the choice whether to cycle or not. In France we're not allowed to cycle whilst the lock down is in place.


----------



## sheddy (2 Nov 2020)

Roll it out across the uk tv network
https://www.sharetheroadtozero.com/
Disclaimer -
Don’t view their videos during breakfast


----------



## Andy in Germany (2 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> well as long as folk don't fall down the stairs on the way to bed.
> I had the idea that there had been a big jump in alcohol consumption, at least at the more problematical end. Folk home drinking.



that would make sense: being stuck at home means a rise in psychological issues like depression and loneliness, so people will self-medicate.


----------



## potsy (2 Nov 2020)

Skolly on his commute telling others to ride safely


----------



## Mo1959 (2 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> Skolly on his commute telling others to ride safely
> 
> View attachment 556009


Good core strength! I would do myself an injury on the back wheel.


----------



## Drago (2 Nov 2020)

oldworld said:


> At least you've got the choice whether to cycle or not. In France we're not allowed to cycle whilst the lock down is in place.


How do you get to work, or to the shops?


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Nov 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> that would make sense: being stuck at home means a rise in psychological issues like depression and loneliness, so people will self-medicate.


and a rise in relationship issues previously submerged by busy schedules in and out of the home.
This hell is I am sure going to lead to a significant rise in relationship breakdowns, abuse and suicide.
Thanks god.


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Nov 2020)

oldworld said:


> At least you've got the choice whether to cycle or not. In France we're not allowed to cycle whilst the lock down is in place.


are you allowed to drive?


----------



## Kryton521 (2 Nov 2020)

sheddy said:


> Roll it out across the uk tv network
> https://www.sharetheroadtozero.com/
> Disclaimer -
> Don’t view their videos during breakfast


F**k me but they've got me welling up.

Why aren't there things like this on UK tv?


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (2 Nov 2020)

How much more money is your wonderful NHS going to extract out of the economy to achieve diddly squat?
Answer me this question...if this second wave has been seen coming why has no-one done anything to stop it? What is actually being done to eradicate this virus? Nothing that anyone can see. All efforts are directed to finding as many positives as possible. And then what? Self isolate for 14 days then carry on as before. That's a really goood way of dealing with the problem. Ostriches have more perception with their heads in the sand than the bosses in your wonderful NHS.
NHS bosses sit back on thier big fat arses/salaries and just complain that they want more. Just like Oliver Twist they always want more. They never deliver more. Unless you want a baby or the doctors think they can get on a TV programme, you are just at the end of a very, very long waiting list.
We no longer have an NHS, all we have is a National Virus Service.
The boss of our local hospital, a small one, takes home *£500,000 per annum*. That's *half a million pounds* going to *one person* running a small hospital. Then there are all the assistants and deputies. It costs a small fortune to get nothing.

And have you seen today's news? The data that this lockdown is worked on is already out of date and is a minimum of 4 times overstated. But never let the facts get in the way of a good lockdown.

The NHS doesn't have a clue, and hasn't had a clue for years.


----------



## DaveReading (2 Nov 2020)

McWobble said:


> In fact, while the number of vehicles fell sharply, the number of RTCs did not.



Do you have any evidence for that?


----------



## sheddy (2 Nov 2020)

^ It would be very useful if the insurance companies made their crash stats public.


----------



## weareHKR (2 Nov 2020)

McWobble said:


> while the number of vehicles fell sharply, the number of RTCs did not.


Eh... How does that work?


----------



## sheddy (2 Nov 2020)

Less traffic, drive faster, more crashes ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Nov 2020)

I suspect that we won't see anything like the same level of compliance this time round as we did last time. A combination of mistrust from the Cummings business, plus a sense of futility and general restriction-fatigue will likely see it not being as well observed. I could be wrong though.

As for me, I couldn't cycle - for various reasons - at the start of the previous one so I was confined to the turbo initially anyway, and I kept that up throughout. I think I may do the same this time. Or if I do go out I'll keep it short and local.


----------



## weareHKR (2 Nov 2020)

Someone by me was issued a summons last Saturday night, a party going on after midnight with 20 people... 👮‍♀️🚔


----------



## straas (2 Nov 2020)

DaveReading said:


> Do you have any evidence for that?



I've heard this from several sources - can't say I've looked too far into it though - seems very believable as every evening round here during lockdown you could hear cars racing around. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-manchester-road-deaths-rise-during-lockdown

I think people are very much fed up now, it's been a long 7 months and now we have no end in sight.

My wife hasn't been over to see her mum since Christmas time, my brother's due to have a baby this month that we won't be able to see. My son doesn't really recognise any of his wider family because he sees them so rarely - and I think we've got it pretty good. There are so few positives coming out of this.


----------



## Phaeton (2 Nov 2020)

straas said:


> my brother's due to have a baby this month


Look on the bright side he's going to be very famous


----------



## BorderReiver (2 Nov 2020)

I always thought the NHS was supposed to be there to protect *us* from the consequences of illness and injury.

Turns out our tax guzzling but apparently fragile NHS needs to be protected *from* us as soon as it is likely a lot of us will be ill!


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2020)

One thing npot much spoken about of late is 'herd-immunity'. Whilst there are witterings about reductions in antibody levels in those that have already had the virus, and one or two cases where people have had CV19 twice, there is still very little evidence at the moment to suggest re-infection. What we need however is as many people to contract CV19 in the short as possible time-scale BUT at a rate at which the NHS can provide proper care AND protect their staff. Stopping the virus is impossible at the moment, but controlling the rate of infection is key.

The government has always followed economics ahead of the science and we are all now paying the penalty. Stricter adherence to social distancing, mandatory mask wearing out of the home, working from home and restricting travel/movement should be promoted not just during the lockdown periods but at all times to keep control and infection at a constantly low levels.


----------



## I like Skol (2 Nov 2020)

PaulSB said:


> I don't take risks on my bike.


Yes you do.

Every time you put a forkful of food into your mouth you risk choking. Every time you pull your pants on in the morning you risk falling over (I believe that, anecdotally, putting on trousers causes quite a large number of hospitalisations each year). Every time you do something, either mundane or extraordinary, you are exposed to an associated risk. We accept these risks constantly, either because there are low consequences or the likely hood is perceived to be low.
You most certainly do take risks when riding a bicycle.


PaulSB said:


> You seem to be implying cycling is inherently dangerous which it is not.


Not sure how you have arrived at that conclusion from the statements I have posted in this thread? I agree that cycling is not inherently dangerous.

I am just suggesting that, now more than ever, we take care. Not everyone will be able or need to change anything, but perhaps rather than putting so much energy into starting an argument, it would be a better use of your time and effort to take a step back and do a quick risk assessment of your activities?


----------



## byegad (2 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years, and now accounts for ever growing proportions of public spending. Yet 7 months later and with unlimited additional cash they still can't do basic things like test and trace or GP appointments. For most of the year we haven't had a functioning health service, just a National Covid Service to manage a disease which is low risk for most people. Turning their backs on all other health conditions is a national disaster created entirely by the NHS. Within a couple of years Covid will look irrelevant compared to the excess deaths from other causes, and NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.


It's private firm doing the trace bit, and doing it as badly as you'd expect any friend of BoJo to manage with pockets bulging with your and my money.


----------



## I like Skol (2 Nov 2020)

@Moderators 

Please can this thread be moved back to its original home?

I would rather all the attempts to hijack the thread and turn it into a political debate be removed and the subject remains where it belongs in general topics.


----------



## potsy (2 Nov 2020)

I once almost broke my ankle whilst filling up a bird feeder, how would I do that more safely?


----------



## I like Skol (2 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> I once almost broke my ankle whilst filling up a bird feeder, how would I do that more safely?


Get a responsible adult to do it?


----------



## MartinQ (2 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> I once almost broke my ankle whilst filling up a bird feeder, how would I do that more safely?


Use your hands?


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> I once almost broke my ankle whilst filling up a bird feeder, how would I do that more safely?


Move that bicycle out the way...


----------



## Rezillo (2 Nov 2020)

This morning, it was blowing a gale and our rooftop weathervane decided that 20 years on a roof was long enough and it would shear most of its rusted mounts and dangle by the two that remained. A mass of sharp and heavy iron now hung at an angle several metres above the ground creaking ominously as its vane swayed in the wind.

I couldn't leave it dangling there as it could drop and blow into the road or onto a walker so there I was up the top of my two part ladder in a steady 40mph wind with a hacksaw and bolt croppers (nothing fancy about cutting it down). I was very relieved when it all crashed to the ground and I could climb back down.


----------



## Venod (2 Nov 2020)

Rezillo said:


> with a hacksaw



You sawed vane, I bet you think this thread is about you.


----------



## MarkF (2 Nov 2020)

I often work in one of the busiest A&E departments in the country, I have met 1 cyclist in there in 5 years! He had a broken arm. Just go and ride, enjoy life and stay healthy.


----------



## Profpointy (2 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> Skolly on his commute telling others to ride safely
> 
> View attachment 556009




He's been emulating the land speed record chap in the Vincent motorcycle


----------



## Mr Celine (2 Nov 2020)

I have only ever once required medical treatment as a result of a cycling injury. That was sustained falling off at walking speed. (Broken radial head, and it was two weeks before I went to the docs). 
I'll carry on as normal thank you very much.


----------



## Rusty Nails (2 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> I'm sure we all watched the BoJo speech yesterday with dismay, but a feeling of inevitability, as he set out the re-introduction of national stiffer restrictions? Personally I found it quite shocking as he described the prospect of medical staff being overwhelmed and forced to decide which patients to treat while others have to be allowed to die! It was also alarming that this situation was potentially only a few weeks away.
> 
> Obviously, if the data analysis is sound, we must act now to avoid this. Nobody can really argue with that? Something that was stressed during the announcement was that we, the population, should keep our existing NHS appointments, continue current treatment and medication and seek medical help for new conditions or problems in the normal way for the time being. Essentially, business as usual at the NHS, but stay at home to reduce the CV spread and impact.
> 
> ...


Don't most accidents requiring hospital visits take place at home or in the work place?

We all have a duty to not go to work and get out of the house as much as possible, but not to ride in a car, or cross the road.

Personally, I'm giving up base-jumping during any lockdown.


----------



## classic33 (3 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Yes you do.
> 
> Every time you put a forkful of food into your mouth you risk choking. Every time you pull your pants on in the morning you risk falling over (I believe that, anecdotally, putting on trousers causes quite a large number of hospitalisations each year). Every time you do something, either mundane or extraordinary, you are exposed to an associated risk. We accept these risks constantly, either because there are low consequences or the likely hood is perceived to be low.
> You most certainly do take risks when riding a bicycle.
> ...


A bit old, but they do give an idea behind the numbers
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/07/angeliquechrisafis1


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

potsy said:


> I once almost broke my ankle whilst filling up a bird feeder, how would I do that more safely?


Shoot the food at selected lucky birds?


----------



## hoopdriver (3 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Shoot the food at selected lucky birds?


Feed them bird shot and then dine on pheasant...


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2020)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> How much more money is your wonderful NHS going to extract out of the economy to achieve diddly squat?
> Answer me this question...if this second wave has been seen coming why has no-one done anything to stop it? What is actually being done to eradicate this virus? Nothing that anyone can see. All efforts are directed to finding as many positives as possible. And then what? Self isolate for 14 days then carry on as before. That's a really goood way of dealing with the problem. Ostriches have more perception with their heads in the sand than the bosses in your wonderful NHS.
> NHS bosses sit back on thier big fat arses/salaries and just complain that they want more. Just like Oliver Twist they always want more. They never deliver more. Unless you want a baby or the doctors think they can get on a TV programme, you are just at the end of a very, very long waiting list.
> We no longer have an NHS, all we have is a National Virus Service.
> ...


Indeed. Mrs D briefly worked in the NHS and it did her head in. Managers managing managers managing managers, whole tiers of managers with nothing to do but manage managers below them while in turn being managed by managers above them, with very few making an actual contribution to either healthcare or service delivery. Mrs D, with an MBA so no small expertise in the area of business managememt, just couldn't get her head around the vast waste and willfilly crass inefficiency so she walked before she said something that got her sacked.

Thr NHS is hardly short of cash but even so, if the dead wood were cut out - well paid dead wood, by and large earning far more than the typical clinically trained staff member - then it would be rolling in lolly.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

cycling uk asking for clarity.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-uk-urges-government-clarity-cycling-rules-278421


----------



## weareHKR (3 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Indeed. Mrs D briefly worked in the NHS and it did her head in. Managers managing managers managing managers, whole tiers of managers with nothing to do but manage managers below them while in turn being managed by managers above them, with very few making an actual contribution to either healthcare or service delivery. Mrs D, with an MBA so no small expertise in the area of business managememt, just couldn't get her head around the vast waste and willfilly crass inefficiency so she walked before she said something that got her sacked.
> 
> Thr NHS is hardly short of cash but even so, if the dead wood were cut out - well paid dead wood, by and large earning far more than the typical clinically trained staff member - then it would be rolling in lolly.


Spot on Drago... & yes I have several family members in the profession who say the exact same...


----------



## rivers (3 Nov 2020)

I've still got to go to work (I work in a university and until the VC says otherwise, I need to be on campus), and my preferred way to get to work in cycling. I'm not going to start driving in regularly any time soon. I'll still go out once a week for a ride, either on my own or with a friend. However, I will keep them sub-50 miles (it's winter after all). And if I want to cycle with more than one friend, well we've already got our weekly Sunday Zwift and discord sessions set-up. It got us through the last lockdown. Getting out on the bike keeps me sane, which is something I'm not going to give up.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> cycling uk asking for clarity.
> 
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-uk-urges-government-clarity-cycling-rules-278421


as some of the comments say a big mistake to ask this question.
Just take care folk, don't mix with more folk than you are supposed to, and use common sense.

If some penpusher now feels that it's their project to devise some barmy restrictive set of rules we all know that cycling uk are the folk to blame.

I will be cycling solo, keeping my distance from folk and taking my own supplies but I don't want some nit trying to tell me where I can go.


----------



## alicat (3 Nov 2020)

I didn't cycle during the last lockdown, partly to protect the NHS and partly to reduce my risk of Covid. This time, I figure that the NHS is better prepared and I want to protect my mental health too.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

alicat said:


> I didn't cycle during the last lockdown, partly to protect the NHS and partly to reduce my risk of Covid. This time, I figure that the NHS is better prepared and I want to protect my mental health too.


personally I have the idea that the threat to the NHS is as great during this lockdown as the last, but I still think you should cycle. Have fun, stay safe.


----------



## hoopdriver (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> cycling uk asking for clarity.
> 
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-uk-urges-government-clarity-cycling-rules-278421


One has to wonder about the idiocy of Cycling UK asking the question of how long a ride is permissible. Ask a question like that and some numpty in a suit is sure to dream up an answer that you don’t want to hear, and then other numpties will repeat it and it will take on the force of unwritten law, and possibly even be enforced by authorities who know no better. Surely, common sense would suggest that this “question” is better left open


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

hoopdriver said:


> One has to wonder about the idiocy of Cycling UK asking the question of how long a ride is permissible. Ask a question like that and some numpty in a suit is sure to dream up an answer that you don’t want to hear, and then other numpties will repeat it and it will take on the force of unwritten law, and possibly even be enforced by authorities who know no better. Surely, common sense would suggest that this “question” is better left open


it does make you wonder if cycling uk has a similar percentage of jobsworths as the civil service and they just want an excuse to natter to each other.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

hoopdriver said:


> One has to wonder about the idiocy of Cycling UK asking the question of how long a ride is permissible. Ask a question like that and some numpty in a suit is sure to dream up an answer that you don’t want to hear, and then other numpties will repeat it and it will take on the force of unwritten law, and possibly even be enforced by authorities who know no better. Surely, common sense would suggest that this “question” is better left open



Must admit that did cross my mind.
If they want a limit or a ban them say so. (Im really looking for an excuse not to go out in the cold this weekend!)


----------



## DaveReading (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> cycling uk asking for clarity.
> 
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-uk-urges-government-clarity-cycling-rules-278421



To quote from that article:

"But as in the nationwide lockdown earlier this year, to date there is little clarity on whether there is a limit on how long you can exercise for, or how far you can travel from home while undertaking it. "

Which is nonsense. 

The law during the earler lockdown (in England) did not put any limit on how long, how far or how many times you can cycle. There is no reason to believe that the latest lockdown will be any different.


----------



## roadrash (3 Nov 2020)

I cant see why people are taking issue with @I like Skol skol original post, its not like he said everyone should not ride , Maybe i have been involved with covid and the pressure on hospital beds, but any beds free for covid patients is a big plus in my book, wigan closed its A AND E department last night , just couldnt cope with the demand, on the plus side , there is one more bed free now MRS R is home.


----------



## matticus (3 Nov 2020)

roadrash said:


> I cant see why people are taking issue with @I like Skol skol original post, its not like he said everyone should not ride ,


It's quite simple - context. The context being, that since March loads of people (EDIT: inc many cyclists on sites like this) HAVE told cyclists to stop riding, or restrict to an hour, not stray too far in case you need rescuing (!). Villages with "Cyclists, FU.. Go Home!" signs. You name it.

It's naive to ignore this context, even if 'Skol's intentions may have been honourable.


----------



## roadrash (3 Nov 2020)

have to dissagree i was only talking about skollys opening post , not villages with signs telling cyclists to go home , there is a big difference between the two, anyhow as i said i am now out of this discussion , and any other covid related discusson, too close to home for me,. im out


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> What we need however is as many people to contract CV19 in the short as possible time-scale BUT at a rate at which the NHS can provide proper care AND protect their staff. Stopping the virus is impossible at the moment, but controlling the rate of infection is key.
> 
> The government has always followed economics ahead of the science and we are all now paying the penalty. Stricter adherence to social distancing, mandatory mask wearing out of the home, working from home and restricting travel/movement should be promoted not just during the lockdown periods but at all times to keep control and infection at a constantly low levels.



You've just made two completely contradictory statements. I agree completely with the first paragraph, we need to let the virus run so as many of the population as possible have caught it and have some immunity to it. You don't achieve that by having lockdowns though, only by permitting people to go about their daily lives as normal.
The lower you try to drive the transmission rate, the longer this nonsense is going to drag on for as you couldn't quickly vaccinate the population even if there was a vaccine ready to dispense. The only way to get it over with is to stop trying to interfere with the epidemic and let nature take it's course. In reality there is a glass ceiling to the viable transmission rate, as the falling numbers in places like Brazil and India have shown. It won't be long before it really starts to fall off again in the USA too.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

roadrash said:


> wigan closed its A AND E department last night , just couldnt cope with the demand,


Mrs Skol mentioned similar to me earlier today. Not sure if she was talking about Tameside, Manchester or Greater Manchester (including Wigan?) but seems odd to me as it wasn't a weekend (over run by drunks) or other large scale incident. Putting aside any paranoid conspiracy theories that this was engineered just to get the public on-side it highlights exactly the capacity crunch situation I am talking about.
Yes, keep cycling, keep healthy, keep sane, keep safe.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

MTB'ers had a 'Not Far, No Gnar' motto, and seeing as many trail centres are not closed (or will be). I personally only stuck to well known routes, unless with others when permitted. I did more cycling during lock down than usual, but kept it 'tame' but with a good work out.

I've avoided A&E for nearly 5 years - the last time I was express into Intensive Care/Resus - I'd rather not tie up that many NHS resources next time, including oxygen (stats of 70%  might make the Docs think I had covid - nope just badly broken). 

Most cycling is fine - I think the practicing doing 30 foot jumps, and 10 foot drop offs might be taking it a bit far


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Mrs Skol mentioned similar to me earlier today. Not sure if she was talking about Tameside, Manchester or Greater Manchester (including Wigan?) but seems odd to me as it wasn't a weekend (over run by drunks) or other large scale incident. Putting aside any paranoid conspiracy theories that this was engineered just to get the public on-side it highlights exactly the capacity crunch situation I am talking about.
> Yes, keep cycling, keep healthy, keep sane, keep safe.



NWAS declared a major incident yesterday - they were overloaded by ambulance call outs.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

fossyant said:


> NWAS declared a major incident yesterday - they were overloaded by ambulance call outs.


that'll be it.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

Well the govt have told golfers not golf.
No limits on cycling. If they wanted limits they only have to announce it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Well the govt have told golfers not golf.
> No limits on cycling. If they wanted limits they have to announce it.


Or CyclingUK have to provoke them into announcing it.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

fossyant said:


> Most cycling is fine - I think the practicing doing 30 foot jumps, and 10 foot drop offs might be taking it a bit far



It's the kamikaze roadies who brag about doing 40-50 mph descents are the ones that will clog up the NHS when they come to grief on the loose gravel or slippery autumn leaves, not the 10-12 mph pootlers just out for a bit of fresh air.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

matticus said:


> It's quite simple - context. The context being, that since March *some* people (EDIT: inc *some* cyclists on sites like this) HAVE told cyclists to stop riding, or restrict to an hour, not stray too far in case you need rescuing (!). Villages with "Cyclists, FU.. Go Home!" signs. You name it.
> 
> It's naive to ignore this context, even if 'Skol's intentions may have been honourable.


Sorry but I have to correct the blatant exaggeration in your post above (edited in bold). A minority of people behaved as you describe. And to put it into 'context', the GO HOME signs were not just aimed at cyclists but all outsiders/strangers/visitors. Perhaps your skewed perception meant you thought they were picking on you?


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Well the govt have told golfers not golf.
> No limits on cycling. If they wanted limits they have to announce it.



But if they take a shotgun, are they OK.

Golf is really just a walk, so should still be OK.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> It's the kamikaze roadies who brag about doing 40-50 mph descents are the ones that will clog up the NHS when they come to grief on the loose gravel or slippery autumn leaves, not the 10-12 mph pootlers just out for a bit of fresh air.



I've never fallen off at 40, 50 or 60. My bad one was just 13 mph.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> It's the kamikaze roadies who brag about doing 40-50 mph descents are the ones that will clog up the NHS when they come to grief on the loose gravel or slippery autumn leaves, not the 10-12 mph pootlers just out for a bit of fresh air.


Thankyou, the voice of reason at last. Go out, enjoy your ride, try not to break any bones and don't try to break any records


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

fossyant said:


> But if they take a shotgun, are they OK.
> 
> Golf is really just a walk, so should still be OK.



I'm surprised about golf tbh. If I am told not ride my bike I won't. But no such instruction has been forthcoming.


----------



## roadrash (3 Nov 2020)

fossyant said:


> NWAS declared a major incident yesterday - they were overloaded by ambulance call outs.


 my son works for NWAS, the major incident status is partly due to number of call outs and partly due to covid related staff shortage.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> It's the kamikaze roadies who brag about doing 40-50 mph descents are the ones that will clog up the NHS when they come to grief on the loose gravel or slippery autumn leaves, not the 10-12 mph pootlers just out for a bit of fresh air.



Think I was going around 12mph - when a car drove into me.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

roadrash said:


> my son works for NWAS, the major incident status is partly due to number of call outs and partly due to covid related staff shortage.



Thanks - the news wasn't clear !


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

fossyant said:


> I've never fallen off at 40, 50 or 60. My bad one was just 13 mph.



If you had come off at warp speed on a bend in the road with a nice solid object like a wall, telegraph pole, or oncoming vehicle to crash into, you probably wouldn't even be here now posting this. No crash is "nice", they all hurt but the faster you are going the more kinetic energy has to be dissipated. I try my utmost not to come off at all, especially on the road. Even at low speeds on a MTB, I'd still rather not find myself wearing a stinging nettle patch either.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> You've just made two completely contradictory statements. I agree completely with the first paragraph, we need to let the virus run so as many of the population as possible have caught it and have some immunity to it. You don't achieve that by having lockdowns though, only by permitting people to go about their daily lives as normal.
> The lower you try to drive the transmission rate, the longer this nonsense is going to drag on for as you couldn't quickly vaccinate the population even if there was a vaccine ready to dispense. The only way to get it over with is to stop trying to interfere with the epidemic and let nature take it's course. In reality there is a glass ceiling to the viable transmission rate, as the falling numbers in places like Brazil and India have shown. It won't be long before it really starts to fall off again in the USA too.


They're contradictory because it's a balancing act. Had we done more of the second we might not be panicked into a lockdown...people could still have their cancer treatments, driving tests, hospitality jobs etc. and Covid spread would be manageable without lockdown.


----------



## matticus (3 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Sorry but I have to correct the blatant exaggeration in your post above (edited in bold). A minority of people behaved as you describe. And to put it into 'context', the GO HOME signs were not just aimed at cyclists but all outsiders/strangers/visitors. Perhaps your skewed perception meant you thought they were picking on you?


Are you denying displays of animosity directed at visiting cyclists, anywhere in the UK? OK, fine, it's not a hill I plan to die on.
(p.s. a minority of the population could be 28 million - that's more than "some"! You need to get a dictionary my friend  )

Meanwhile, if you have a better answer than mine to the mystery mentioned below, let me know:


roadrash said:


> I cant see why people are taking issue with @I like Skol skol original post,


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I Even at low speeds on a MTB, I'd still rather not find myself wearing a stinging nettle patch either.



Every ride here during summer - stinging nettled legs


----------



## roadrash (3 Nov 2020)

matticus said:


> Are you denying displays of animosity directed at visiting cyclists, anywhere in the UK?



not sure where this came from , i never said i am denying it , i said i was refering only to the op

I do not need a dictionary ...some could be 2 , some could be 30, 000,000 both come under the heading "some"

go twist someone elses words,


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> .people could still have their cancer treatments, driving tests, hospitality jobs etc. and Covid spread would be manageable without lockdown.



The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.


----------



## matticus (3 Nov 2020)

@roadrash I was answering Skol. Please read carefully before diving in with both feet.

(you'll find that Skol has not just twisted my words, but carefully re-edited them for all to see!)

I answered YOUR question earlier, but you diverted into a rant about your local hospital. That may have been accurate and topical, but was nothing to do with what I said. Ha and indeed Ha!

(p.s. if you two want to pile in on my answer, best to check what each has written before continuing your rant. Eh?! )


----------



## roadrash (3 Nov 2020)

firstly , i apologise, if im wrong i admit it, and was wrong, BUT i was not Ranting about the local hopital at all , just stating facts , after the last week with my mife being in there , ranting about them couldnt be further from the truth, , again apologies for jumping in earlier


----------



## roubaixtuesday (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.



Hmmm. You believe expert view is due to "obsession".

It's probably productive for you at this point to ask yourself why you've reached this rather extreme position. 

We can note, nonetheless that there are reasons other than obsession to believe suppression of the virus is a good idea. 

1. The lower the level, the more effective track and trace is. So *less* restrictions are required to keep at a low, rather than high level. 

2. Most economists believe suppressing the virus to low levels results in *less*, not more economic damage. 

3. Less lives are lost until a vaccine is available. 

In summary: more freedom, more prosperity and less death. 

Or it could just be obsession, of course.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

I know 


SkipdiverJohn said:


> The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.


I know some folk thought Mrs T descended from heaven (to quote the Pope's phrase about Mussolini) but am still intrigued by your confidence in predicting what her policy would have been on this. Are you in Ouija board contact with her of an evening?


----------



## alicat (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Think I was going around 12mph - when a car drove into me.



Snap! Or to be more accurate, I cycled into a car when the SMIDSY driver pulled out on me when I was on a roundabout.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (3 Nov 2020)

@I like Skol 

In a doubtless vain attempt to drag back on topic, what specifically did you have in mind by the following - what do you believe cyclists should be changing?



I like Skol said:


> As cyclists is it again time we proactively reduce our exposure to injury risk


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> I know some folk thought Mrs T descended from heaven (to quote the Pope's phrase about Mussolini) but am still intrigued by your confidence in predicting what her policy would have been on this. Are you in Ouija board contact with her of an evening?



I know one thing, Mrs T would have decided on a course of action and then stuck to it regardless. She would not have been flip-flopping and making complete U-turns every few hours/days. If she had decided lockdown was the way, she would have had the force of personality to carry the population with her. Every time Boris says something, then does the complete opposite 24 hours later he just makes himself look like a fool, and people lose faith with the plan. The current lockdown won't work because people are sick of the restrictions and a high proportion have no intention whatsoever in complying with them. Instead of meeting up down the pub, they are just going to mix domestically in small enclosed spaces instead, minus any form of social distancing. Fridges are already being well stocked with beer, it's just going to go underground with no precautions and no track & trace..


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

faulty memory there skipdiver - Mrs T didn't carry the population with her at all - her period was one of the most divided in the country's long history. Maybe since the civil war - though she kept her head.

You've only just noticed that Boris is a shyster with few fixed positions or core?


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.


If only Johnson had listened to his experts and hid behind them...


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> faulty memory there skipdiver - Mrs T didn't carry the population with her at all - her period was one of the most divided in the country's long history. Maybe since the civil war - though she kept her head.



She carried enough of the population with her to win three elections all the same, a tally only equalled by slimy Blair - who also did not enjoy universal support and admiration.
If Boris doesn't buck his ideas up PDQ, the knives will be out for him and he'll be gone before the next election. I'm sure a few letters are already being prepared to the 1922 committee right now. He's really skating on thin ice, if he tries to do a dirty Brexit deal with the EU, he will be gone within a year from now.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> ….if he tries to do a dirty Brexit deal with the EU, he will be gone within a year from now.


Is there another kind he can do?


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> faulty memory there skipdiver - Mrs T didn't carry the population with her at all - her period was one of the most divided in the country's long history. Maybe since the civil war - though she kept her head.
> 
> You've only just noticed that Boris is a shyster with few fixed positions or core?



Yup - also she cut the NHS to the bone - and didn't care how long people waited - 3 won elections sure - but at that time we had 2 opposition parties - I don't believe she got over 50% of the vote (not that many do). As soon as the SDP went she was on a donward spiral.

Can I get through post without saying 'Evil Middle Class Witch" ? - it would seem not.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> She carried enough of the population with her to win three elections all the same, a tally only equalled by slimy Blair - who also did not enjoy universal support and admiration.
> If Boris doesn't buck his ideas up PDQ, the knives will be out for him and he'll be gone before the next election. I'm sure a few letters are already being prepared to the 1922 committee right now. He's really skating on thin ice, if he tries to do a dirty Brexit deal with the EU, he will be gone within a year from now.



Boris was never good. He is robust in debate and can brilliantly humiliate those question him - and his very funny at time - but loveable, bumbling buffoon, isn't what is required in a pandemic. We need a thoughtful, grey, boring PM - Who quietly gets things done.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> I don't believe she got over 50% of the vote (not that many do).



Yep, the british electoral system ensures that you can be far from universely loved and still be triumphant, even with way more seats than the other bunch. Parties have lost elections even though they had more share of the popular vote. I well remember during Thatcher's pomp coming across a woman who seemed to think that she was universely loved/supported. I was taken aback by an image of the bubble she must have lived in.


----------



## Andy in Germany (3 Nov 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Yep, the british electoral system ensures that you can be far from universely loved and still be triumphant, even with way more seats than the other bunch. Parties have lost elections even though they had more share of the popular vote. I well remember during Thatcher's pomp coming across a woman who seemed to think that she was universely loved/supported. I was taken aback by an image of the bubble she must have lived in.



The currently ruling party has a vote share of 42%, so this is far from a universal phenomenon.


----------



## kynikos (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Think I was going around 12mph - when a car drove into me.


If only you'd been going at 20 mph - it would have missed you...


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> @I like Skol
> 
> In a doubtless vain attempt to drag back on topic, what specifically did you have in mind by the following - what do you believe cyclists should be changing?


OK I'll join you in struggling to keep the thread on topic. Otherwise the mods may as well just move it back to the politics drivel forum where they placed it briefly.

Personally I think cyclists should specifically comply with regulations as set out by the authorities, and generally aim to reduce contact with others outside their household to a minimum. How they go about that latter task is their business. Me, I think I'll be knocking long (100km+) rides on the head for the time being and doing more on the turbo. I'm lucky in that respect in that I both have a turbo and enjoy using it. Others can do what they see fit.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> @I like Skol
> 
> In a doubtless vain attempt to drag back on topic, what specifically did you have in mind by the following - what do you believe cyclists should be changing?





I like Skol said:


> As cyclists is it again time we proactively reduce our exposure to injury risk in order to reduce avoidable hospitalisations?


This thread already contains clear guidance on the sort of thing I am suggesting.
I am not going to give further clarification because this will only lead to half the posters in this thread refusing to stop riding (even though I never said they should) because it is their right, the situation is a farce, nobody is telling them what to do and they will bloody well carry on as before, regardless! 50% will claim that they are completely safe and it is everyone else that is a danger so why isn't anything being done about that? The rest will do anything they can to disagree with whatever is said just because that is what they come here to do and they enjoy it. A small minority already get 'it' and will make any necessary changes then get on with their lives


----------



## Juan Kog (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Can I get through post without saying 'Evil Middle Class Witch" ? - it would seem not.


I think that shows admirable restraint.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (3 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> This thread already contains clear guidance on the sort of thing I am suggesting.
> I am not going to give further clarification because this will only lead to half the posters in this thread refusing to stop riding (even though I never said they should) because it is their right, the situation is a farce, nobody is telling them what to do and they will bloody well carry on as before, regardless! 50% will claim that they are completely safe and it is everyone else that is a danger so why isn't anything being done about that? The rest will do anything they can to disagree with whatever is said just because that is what they come here to do and they enjoy it. A small minority already get 'it' and will make any necessary changes then get on with their lives



In all honesty, I read your original post as a suggestion to stop cycling. I've genuinely no idea now what you mean at all. But that's fine.

@Dogtrousers my view, I think, is that on road, as long as I'm self sufficient for food, drink and mechanicals I'll just carry on and do what I fancy. At this time of year, it's very unlikely I'll be out for more than half a day/100 kms. I can't see that riding on road is a high risk activity regardless, unless you intend going full on no lights ninja red light jumper. Most serious accidents involve motorists and are at junctions, so out in the countryside is inherently lower risk, which is where I ride. In several decades of riding I've only been stranded for a mechanical once, and that was 'cos I left my saddlebag at home by accident and punctured. So no effect on me. As to turbos - the work of Beelzebub, I prefer sleet.

Short version: solo on road riding is low covid risk and low accident risk. Carry on.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Nov 2020)

kingrollo said:


> I'm surprised about golf tbh. If I am told not ride my bike I won't. But no such instruction has been forthcoming.



Ever tried golf on a bike?


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> As to turbos - the work of Beelzebub, I prefer sleet.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.



Yeah experts what do they know.....


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> @Dogtrousers my view, I think is[...]


Precisely what I said. Think about it and come to your own conclusion, which is what you've done. Entirely up to you. The fact that you've come to a different conclusion to me is not a problem. I'm not one of these "do cycling exactly the way I do it, or else you are just wrong" types. 

... and I quite like my turbo. I went up Alpe d'Huez in the sunshine last weekend, as the rain lashed the windows.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm lucky in that respect in that I both I am a crazy lunatic and have a turbo and enjoy using it.


----------



## boydj (3 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years, and now accounts for ever growing proportions of public spending. Yet 7 months later and with unlimited additional cash they still can't do basic things like test and trace or GP appointments. For most of the year we haven't had a functioning health service, just a National Covid Service to manage a disease which is low risk for most people. Turning their backs on all other health conditions is a national disaster created entirely by the NHS. Within a couple of years Covid will look irrelevant compared to the excess deaths from other causes, and NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.



I don't know where you get your info, but the above is pure rubbish. Since a visit to the doctor on the 12th October, I've had four hospital appointments covering an initial assessment, MRI scan, covid test, biopsy and bone scan. I couldn't have been looked after better. The NHS, staffed by caring, competent professionals, is definitely there for those who need it.


----------



## biggs682 (3 Nov 2020)

Just set up my Rourke on the turbo trainer so that will be my lock down ride


----------



## alicat (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> In all honesty, I read your original post as a suggestion to stop cycling. I've genuinely no idea now what you mean at all. But that's fine.



So did I. So I'd love to know what you think we should do differently @I like Skol.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

biggs682 said:


> Just set up my Rourke on the turbo trainer so that will be my lock down ride
> 
> View attachment 556287
> 
> ...



I'm all Zwifted up with my Ribble 653, and did the ride on the first lockdown day in March. I got out on the bike after that as much as possible - the flexibility of being at home and not commuting. I'll still be going out.

One of my early lockdown rides, I was riding up a road on my MTB, and some young mum just stuck her arm out with finger pointing that I should pass on the ther side of the moon, I was a long distance from her. I thought (having had kids), you are the one with the germ machine in the trolly. I didn't say a word, but I guess she's whizzing round her covid nursery buds now (like my SIL is....)


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Nov 2020)

biggs682 said:


> Just set up my Rourke on the turbo trainer so that will be my lock down ride
> 
> View attachment 556287
> 
> ...



Accident waiting to happen 😁


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Ever tried golf on a bike?



I think it's coming to Zwift. They let runners on it.


----------



## I like Skol (3 Nov 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> In all honesty, I read your original post as a suggestion to stop cycling. I've genuinely no idea now what you mean at all. But that's fine.





alicat said:


> So did I. So I'd love to know what you think we should do differently @I like Skol.


Ok, to be fair, my first post was maybe not well worded, but does not ask people to stop riding, and just a few posts down page 1 of this thread is some clear explanation of what I meant. I dont believe there can be any real confusion about what I am saying.


I like Skol said:


> This has reminded me of the last Covid spike crisis in the spring when a lot of activity and sports enthusiasts cut right back on the amount and level of activity to reduce the chance of being hospitalised due to avoidable injuries and therefore avoid being a burden to the NHS at a critical moment.
> 
> Todays incident has reminded me that maybe it is time to revisit this strategy? Nobody ever really intends to injure themselves this way, but we all have an accepted level of risk, chances we are happy to take, or expose ourselves to risk through inattention or lack of foresight.
> 
> As cyclists is it again time we proactively reduce our exposure to injury risk in order to reduce avoidable hospitalisations?





I like Skol said:


> I'm not saying don't exercise, just make sensible choices like going for a road ride instead of tearing across moorland and mountain tracks on an MTB, or switch off your Strava and forget and PBs etc? Just tone it down a bit to play it safe, small changes can make a big difference.


----------



## classic33 (3 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The spread is perfectly manageable. The numbers are sticking in the mid 20,000's a day and they are not shooting up through the roof, and the testing rates are much higher than they were six months ago so a higher proportion of the virus is being detected. The "experts" would like everyone locked down for the next year if they had it their way, they are obsessed by trying to suppress the numbers instead of just making the best of the situation. Johnson has shown he ain't no Mrs T when it comes to having a backbone. He just craps himself and panics as soon as he has to deal with anything unpalatable. It's the easy way out for politicians to hide behind "experts" and they are accountable to no-one for the damage they are causing. They don't care how many people lose their jobs as a result of the lockdowns, the taxpayer is still paying their wages every month.


You can of course back up those claims.

The hospital beds may well be there, but there's more in use, with fewer staff. Some of the staff that were there in April have been running round like the proverbial BAF. Doing the job they trained to do, but with less public support this time round.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Nov 2020)

What Skol is saying is only indulge in activities at a level which is unlikely to result in you doing yourself a nasty injury and ending up hospitalised. Don't push your luck in other words. Whatever physical activity floats your boat just take it easy and use it to maintain some fitness. Don't try to beat records and don't do anything too hardcore.
He never said don't ride, just don't behave dumb when you ride.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Today a cycling buddy fell off his bike. No one else involved, just a mistake on his part or maybe some oil on the wet road and luckily he walked away and called his wife to pick him up. However, this could easily have had a different outcome and resulted in hospitalisation. This has reminded me of the last Covid spike crisis in the spring when a lot of activity and sports enthusiasts cut right back on the amount and level of activity to reduce the chance of being hospitalised due to avoidable injuries and therefore avoid being a burden to the NHS at a critical moment.


Cutting right down and making oneself unhealthier seems exactly the wrong way to try to avoid hospitals!

On average, you extend your life by cycling. Try to minimise risk while doing so (including paying attention!) and accept that some will still lose the bet, but take confidence you're doing the right thing overall.

Oh and if your buddy fell on oil, isn't that some motorist's fault? We should all be minimising motoring to reduce how many others we unwittingly hospital use, not only through oil drops causing crashes but also pollution and all that.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

alicat said:


> So did I. So I'd love to know what you think we should do differently @I like Skol.


Me three but I may have been prejudiced by the "lockdown means cycling is banned" posts by haters on other sites.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> In a car or motorcycle?


Yes, bizarrely, if I read the draft regs correctly. Similar to how people were allowed to drive to exercise after the first relaxation of the spring lockdown. If you want to reduce hospital load, there's an easy thing to cut before exercise itself.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

DaveReading said:


> To quote from that article:
> 
> "But as in the nationwide lockdown earlier this year, to date there is little clarity on whether there is a limit on how long you can exercise for, or how far you can travel from home while undertaking it. "
> 
> ...


The law didn't but Gove did, sort of, in an interview. I think CUK are trying to avoid a repeat of that. Not sure it's the best way but they tried not asking last time and it didn't really work.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

matticus said:


> Are you denying displays of animosity directed at visiting cyclists, anywhere in the UK?


https://road.cc/content/news/live-blog-14-april-2020-272699

View: https://twitter.com/gsholling/status/1249659263695433728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


----------



## Kingfisher101 (4 Nov 2020)

boydj said:


> I don't know where you get your info, but the above is pure rubbish. Since a visit to the doctor on the 12th October, I've had four hospital appointments covering an initial assessment, MRI scan, covid test, biopsy and bone scan. I couldn't have been looked after better. The NHS, staffed by caring, competent professionals, is definitely there for those who need it.


 You've been lucky, a lot depends on where you live. Many people have had important operations cancelled and other procedures.You cant have failed to read about how its affected a lot of cancer patients and women having miscarriages/still births etc. Its totally harrowing.


----------



## Hicky (4 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> NHS has been an unworkable bureaucracy for many years, and now accounts for ever growing proportions of public spending. Yet 7 months later and with unlimited additional cash they still can't do basic things like test and trace or GP appointments. For most of the year we haven't had a functioning health service, just a National Covid Service to manage a disease which is low risk for most people. Turning their backs on all other health conditions is a national disaster created entirely by the NHS. Within a couple of years Covid will look irrelevant compared to the excess deaths from other causes, and NHS managers are already lining up their excuses for how these aren't their fault.


I'm not quite sure where to start with this, ok.....saying it's the "NHS fault" is just like saying the Police/Army etc are shite. It's a terrible argument.
Have a little more thought to it rather than blaming a huge entity which has enormously differing protocols for patient acceptance/management. Now so many individuals are of the idea C19 isn't a thing the A&E dept are over run with the usual dross/farkwits contributing to the waiting times along with the illness/isolation of the staff within hospitals it isn't helping. You can have all the Nightingale hospitals you want...where are the staff coming from...?
In the first lockdown these people kept away from increasing the footfall within hospitals plus winter pressures aren't helping.
Blame recruitment, blame the Gov for removing the bursary/incentives for going into a caring profession.....remove the permanent threat of assault in ED depts by self entitled bellends !!!!!
The track and trace isn't the NHS fault.....there isn't unlimited cash been given to the NHS wtf!!!
From my family alone hospital appointments have been maintained for pregnancy, investigative post op for knee replacement, chronic pain clinic. I realise many areas have suffered with appointments cancelled many are life threatening but we've had a national emergency and staff often have specific skillsets that aren't readily transferable to different depts. I'll stop now as you can't cut staff in half and double the numbers


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> You've been lucky, a lot depends on where you live. Many people have had important operations cancelled and other procedures.You cant have failed to read about how its affected a lot of cancer patients and women having miscarriages/still births etc. Its totally harrowing.


But what is really due to c19 overload and what are the "usual" postcode lottery? Hard to tell.


----------



## Phaeton (4 Nov 2020)

We've received an email from the local NHS to say last lock down they had zero cases now they have 30 cases with 2 in ICU


----------



## palinurus (4 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> We have been asked to stay at home and only make essential journeys for food or work, or did I miss something?



I don't think there's any restrictions on those things being essential: If your workplace is open and you can't reasonably work from home you can go to work. My work is very far from essential- but it's open, and I can't do much of it from home. Cycling still seems a good way to get there given my other options are the bus or train.

_"(4) Exception 2 is that it is reasonably necessary for P (person concerned) to leave or be outside P’s home—_

_(a) for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for P to work, or to provide those services, from home"_
The only use of the word essential in the regulations relates to essential voluntary services- food banks, blood donations, in relation to these being acceptable reasons to open a community centre or library.


----------



## Mike_P (4 Nov 2020)

One of the main issues is whether increased number of CV19 inpatients means the Nightingale Hospitals have to be used; they will be staffed by NHS staff redeployed from the existing hospitals with consequential reductions at those.


----------



## classic33 (4 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> But what is really due to c19 overload and what are the "usual" postcode lottery? Hard to tell.


When you get five similarly worded letters, from three seperate trusts and five hospitals*, what would you say was the reason. "Postcode Lottery"!

*Different problems/issues being treated at each.


----------



## Drago (5 Nov 2020)

75 people each day require hospital treament for serious injuries acquired in road traffic collisions, and hundreds for less serious injuries. 5 or 6 a day die from the same cause, and many of them will have been treated by the NHS before popping their clogs.

Therefore, if we're serious about helping the NHS we will stop driving our cars unnecessarily and, lets be honest, most car journeys are for convenience rather than necessity.


----------



## weareHKR (5 Nov 2020)

A ban on fireworks for tonight may well have been a good shout, not that I wish to spoil anyone's fun, however, they are usually many casualties... 🔥💥


----------



## bladesman73 (5 Nov 2020)

Is this a joke post? Stop people driving cars first.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (6 Nov 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Is there another kind he can do?



He can walk away and let them go whistle for our fish and the right to interfere in our laws. The Canadians haven't given the EU free access to their fishing waters, or agreed to follow EU rules, so why should we accept those demands?. The EU are taking the piss.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> He can walk away and let them go whistle for our fish and the right to interfere in our laws. The Canadians haven't given the EU free access to their fishing waters, or agreed to follow EU rules, so why should we accept those demands?. The EU are taking the piss.









Get over-it....


----------



## PaulSB (6 Nov 2020)

I was walking with my wife today, decent eight mile hike. I was put in mind of this thread.

Throughout the Covid-19 crisis we have, when the rules allowed, walked with many friends. We have all adopted the technique of crossing styles without touching the style with our hands. It's surprisingly tricky and requires good balance.

Made me wonder if people should stop country walks to protect the NHS?


----------



## Drago (6 Nov 2020)

Have I fallen into a wormhole in the space time continuum? One moment were talking about sensible meadures to avoid requiring a hospital visit, next people are bickering about Brexit. What on earth is going on?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (6 Nov 2020)

And stop cooking to protect the NHS.


----------



## Drago (6 Nov 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> And stop cooking to protect the NHS.


Stop eating my cooking to protect the NHS.


----------



## lazybloke (6 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> He can walk away and let them go whistle for our fish and the right to interfere in our laws. The Canadians haven't given the EU free access to their fishing waters, or agreed to follow EU rules, so why should we accept those demands?. The EU are taking the piss.


The usual point raised is the UK opted to sell fishing rights to overseas interests. I imagine the terms of those sales would need to be scrutinised to identify exactly who is taking the p....roverbial. 
I don't know what the answer is, but I'd rather see the facts before assuming which side is being unreasonable. Possibly both sides....


----------



## Blue Hills (6 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Have I fallen into a wormhole in the space time continuum? One moment were talking about sensible meadures to avoid requiring a hospital visit, next people are bickering about Brexit. What on earth is going on?


there are special prizes awarded by a hidden cchat cabal for gratuitous brexit comments.
Some hope that the prize line-up might include sexual favours but i believe a cuddly toy is all most get.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (6 Nov 2020)

*Mod note:*

Folks, the subject of this thread is _not _Brexit. Isn't there enough discussion of Brexit around here for you already?  Take it elsewhere and keep this thread for the topic in the OP.

Any further off topic stuff may be removed.

Thanks


----------



## Kingfisher101 (7 Nov 2020)

I think there's more to life than protecting the NHS. I feel sorry for people who will struggle to feed themselves and pay their mortgages/rent or may have lost their jobs due to all this. The NHS is overwhelmed every year with the winter beds crisis and we dont have all this.
Boris knew there wasnt enough staff for those Nightingale hospitals to function so why build them? the one in Glasgow has never seen a patient and cost nearly 50 million. The whole thing from start to where we are now has be an absolute joke.


----------



## Drago (7 Nov 2020)

I suspect that if Boris didn't build the Nightingale Hospitals someone would have complained about that instead.


----------



## PaulSB (7 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> I think there's more to life than protecting the NHS. I feel sorry for people who will struggle to feed themselves and pay their mortgages/rent or may have lost their jobs due to all this. The NHS is overwhelmed every year with the winter beds crisis and we dont have all this.
> Boris knew there wasnt enough staff for those Nightingale hospitals to function so why build them? the one in Glasgow has never seen a patient and cost nearly 50 million. The whole thing from start to where we are now has be an absolute joke.


An absolute joke? I'm struggling a little with your post. Yes the NHS faces significant pressure every winter but it is not overwhelmed.

If we didn't protect the NHS there is/was the potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed and simply not have the resources to care for people. Should we reach that situation despite the best efforts of many the Nightingale hospitals will be needed. It's called being prepared.

If we had overflowing hospitals and nowhere to put people you would then have something to complain about.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (7 Nov 2020)

The Nightingale hospitals are about keeping virus patients away from all the rest of the patients as much as anything. If they get swamped by coronavirus admissions they are not going to mix them all up with the regular punters in local hospitals who haven't got the virus. As well as providing more bedspace, it makes sense to keep large numbers of people with the same infection together. They can't infect someone else if all the other patients also have the same virus.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (7 Nov 2020)

The Nightingale Hospitals will never be in operation because there are not enough staff to work in them full stop.


----------



## Phaeton (7 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> The Nightingale Hospitals will never be in operation because there are not enough staff to work in them full stop.


Is that not where the squaddies come in?


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Nov 2020)

I went out for a ride today. Just sayin'

I stayed close to home and just repeatedly rode different routes up and down a local high point. I think my own concerns about riding during lockdown are probably more to do with having to rely on other means of getting home if I have an unfixable mechanical (which has happened to me - twice) rather than ending up in hospital (which has not).

Traffic was about what I'd expect for mid day Saturday. No noticeable reduction.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (7 Nov 2020)

Loads of cyclists out today, which was gratifying


----------



## Blue Hills (7 Nov 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I went out for a ride today. Just sayin'
> 
> I stayed close to home and just repeatedly rode different routes up and down a local high point. I think my own concerns about riding during lockdown are probably more to do with having to rely on other means of getting home if I have an unfixable mechanical (which has happened to me) rather than ending up in hospital (which has not).
> 
> Traffic was about what I'd expect for mid day Saturday. No noticeable reduction.


the only unfixable mechanical which occurs to me is a tyre blowing off its wire rim fixing.
Strangely happened to me recently on a local shopping trip so i took a local london train back.
Maybe i should take a spare tyre on lockdown rides.
in truth i will cycle anywhere I want for however long. If the worst should happen i don't see the risk to me or anyone else being worse than a trip to shops or, if i was so inclined, a jaunt to one of the many flavours of bonkers hadtheirtime churches/temples whatever.

edit - post first 2 likes, the rim blowout happened after a puncture - i very probably fitted things badly on fixing it.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> The Nightingale Hospitals will never be in operation because there are not enough staff to work in them full stop.


I wonder why that is?


----------



## Bonus (7 Nov 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> I always minimise my risk because I don't like getting hurt.



yeah I'm funny like that too. :-)


----------



## DCLane (7 Nov 2020)

My club's ride captain ended up in hospital today after a crash on wet leaves.

Be careful out there ...


----------



## cougie uk (7 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> The Nightingale Hospitals will never be in operation because there are not enough staff to work in them full stop.


I thought they were designed for minimal staff ? Bloody awful places to end up.


----------



## DaveReading (7 Nov 2020)

cougie uk said:


> I thought they were designed for minimal staff ? Bloody awful places to end up.



I think the hope it that if you're taken to one, it isn't the end.


----------



## mjr (7 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Boris [...] the one in Glasgow has never seen a patient and cost nearly 50 million.


The NHS Louisa Jourdan Hospital in Glasgow was set up by NHS Scotland, run by the Scottish Government, not Boris


Dogtrousers said:


> I stayed close to home and just repeatedly rode different routes up and down a local high point. I think my own concerns about riding during lockdown are probably more to do with having to rely on other means of getting home if I have an unfixable mechanical (which has happened to me - twice) rather than ending up in hospital (which has not).


Clearly not worried about conking out uphill or crashing on a descent!


DCLane said:


> My club's ride captain ended up in hospital today after a crash on wet leaves.
> 
> Be careful out there ...


And does the "tread isn't necessary on bike tyres" myth get much support in that club?

Hope they mend well and soon.


----------



## Drago (8 Nov 2020)

DCLane said:


> My club's ride captain ended up in hospital today after a crash on wet leaves.
> 
> Be careful out there ...


I don't wish him any ill and hope he recovers swiftly, but that is simply poor bikecraft. We should all be reading the surface upon which we are riding - a change in the colour, shade or texture of a surface indicates a change in grip levels.

I do think many people (not singling out this chap as I don't know him) when it comes to their own safety on the roads would benefit far more from some proper tuition than they would from caking themselves in florries and lights.


----------



## alicat (8 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> I don't wish him any ill and hope he recovers swiftly, but that is simply poor bikecraft. We should all be reading the surface upon which we are riding - a change in the colour, shade or texture of a surface indicates a change in grip levels.
> 
> I do think many people (not singling out this chap as I don't know him) when it comes to their own safety on the roads would benefit far more from some proper tuition than they would from caking themselves in florries and lights.



Gosh, there are a lot of assumptions there. If I stopped every time I saw wet leaves at the moment, I'd be bailing out every few hundred yards. I'm not sure that's practical in a group.


----------



## Mike_P (8 Nov 2020)

To quote a comment I made for Lockdown 1.0 it's probably time to go for WRs than PRs, that WR being worse record


----------



## DRM (8 Nov 2020)

alicat said:


> Gosh, there are a lot of assumptions there. If I stopped every time I saw wet leaves at the moment, I'd be bailing out every few hundred yards. I'm not sure that's practical in a group.


It’s not stopping for wet leaves, it’s being aware of what’s ahead, risk assessing the road surface and riding accordingly, for example a dark stain under trees can indicate sap on the road , leaves, well that’s a given, they’re lethal, rainbow pattern, especially on curves usually spilt diesel, it’s worse than ice, then backing off as needed, most people who have done a lot of off road riding have developed the technique of scanning up the road about 30 to 40 feet ahead then back down to about 3 feet in front of your front wheel,
hopefully the ride leader is ok and is unhurt.


----------



## PaulSB (8 Nov 2020)

DRM said:


> It’s not stopping for wet leaves, it’s being aware of what’s ahead, risk assessing the road surface and riding accordingly, for example a dark stain under trees can indicate sap on the road , leaves, well that’s a given, they’re lethal, rainbow pattern, especially on curves usually spilt diesel, it’s worse than ice, then backing off as needed, most people who have done a lot of *off road riding have developed the technique of scanning up the road about 30 to 40 feet ahead then back down to about 3 feet in front of your front wheel,*
> hopefully the ride leader is ok and is unhurt.



As have all the "roadies" I ride with, it's good basic cycle craft easily applied riding solo or in a group. In a group it's obviously a case of putting trust in the guys in front but that's a given anyway.

Ice is the really difficult one and it's too mild now.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> Clearly not worried about conking out uphill or crashing on a descent!


I can assure you I do worry about crashing on descents, as my brake pads will attest. I'm not worried about conking out uphill cos I don't know what it means 😁


----------



## mjr (8 Nov 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I can assure you I do worry about crashing on descents, as my brake pads will attest. I'm not worried about conking out uphill cos I don't know what it means 😁


Doing a Tom Simpson but without chemical assistance.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (8 Nov 2020)

Probably excessive speed was involved. Some roadies just don't seem to understand the need to take it easy and keep the cornering or braking forces down. They just go balls out, even riding out of the saddle with the bike moving from side to side, and hope for the best. If you haven't got good traction, you can't transmit the forces between the bike and the surface. It's very rare you'll go sliding if freewheeling or light pedalling a bike in a straight line, even on wet leaves. it's trying to accelerate hard, brake, or corner that tends to break the tractive limit.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (8 Nov 2020)

Its the edges of the roads that have this leaf mulch, just ride out further into the road, whats behind will just have to slow down and wait a bit. It gets really slippery because it freezes over then thaws all the time.


----------



## Drago (8 Nov 2020)

alicat said:


> Gosh, there are a lot of assumptions there. If I stopped every time I saw wet leaves at the moment, I'd be bailing out every few hundred yards. I'm not sure that's practical in a group.


One does not need to stop. A skilled rider will recognise the visual indicators in a surface with differing levels of grip, and will adjust their riding to accommodate this. I teach this sort of thing to EMS cyclists and not one has yet needed to stop.

Fall off and faceplant because you've just blindly barrelled onwards and you'll definitely need to stop, and possibly even stop in hospital.

What is really frightening is that these are skills that car drivers should also possess, yet so few of them do.


----------



## I like Skol (8 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> What is really frightening is that these are skills that car drivers should also possess, yet so few of them do.


I think I have said this on the forum before, but it's worth repeating. I like to drive enthusiastically from time to time, find the limits, know how my cars feel and behave when it all gets a bit 'iffy' and 'vague'. Driving in the wet, no problem. Bit of an oily patch on a corner, predictable and boring. Frost, ice and snow, well it isn't surprising considering the ambient temperatures, child's play really. I encourage my wife to do the same and explain the reasons for doing this, but she just doesn't get 'it'. Doesn't like it, won't practice it (at times of safety, obviously).
Come winter and I am equally amused and frustrated by my fellow road users slipping and sliding uncontrollably while I plough my path safely and dependably in my 'normal' family car and the chunky 4x4 stays at home. It's not fool proof but it really isn't rocket science!

Likewise, riding on two wheels. It is usually very, very predictable when grip is going to be lost and appropriate riding will avoid any unexpected interactions with the ground. Only problem is that a minor slip on two wheels is much more likely to result in a 'Oh Sh!t' moment than similar on 4 wheels, so an ounce more caution is required by motor and pedal cycles.


----------



## Oldhippy (8 Nov 2020)

Had a few Oh sh!t moments on motorcycles with drain covers in the past.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> Doing a Tom Simpson but without chemical assistance.


No, I'm not at all worried about that. Sydenham Hill has Crystal Palace mast at the top, and has multiple ascent routes, but the resemblance to Ventoux stops there.


----------



## mjr (8 Nov 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> No, I'm not at all worried about that. Sydenham Hill has Crystal Palace mast at the top, and has multiple ascent routes, but the resemblance to Ventoux stops there.


I thought if you rode enough reps it was like Everest?


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> I thought if you rode enough reps it was like Everest?


Back-of-fag-packet I think it would take at least 100 reps to "do an Everest" at Crystal palace, whichever road you chose.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> I thought if you rode enough reps it was like Everest?



More like Crystal Meth


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (8 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> What is really frightening is that these are skills that car drivers should also possess, yet so few of them do.



Modern cars are stuffed with electronic driver aids which make a lot of motorists think they are better drivers than they actually are, no matter how clumsily and ineptly they pilot their vehicle. I really learned the basics of driving on some old motors, with crossply tyres, drum brakes, and nothing in the way of arse-saving driver aids. It made you very aware of the limits of tyre grip and the risk of locking up wheels braking clumsily. When I came to do my car driving test it was in a modern tin box with servo disc brakes and it felt like driving a jelly compared to a leaf sprung Land Rover and Bedford TK lorry.


----------



## Oldhippy (8 Nov 2020)

Bedford TK's. Love them.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (8 Nov 2020)

Oldhippy said:


> Bedford TK's. Love them.



They were well engineered motors, had really good manual steering and smooth progressive brakes. Just a bit too slow and not really geared for motorways! Top of the windscreen was a little bit low as well. Also had a few Ford D series at work too. They were f***ing horrible things. The TK was a Rolls Royce in comparison. I used to absolutely detest the Fords and would always use a TK or even a Series 2 Land Rover in preference.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Nov 2020)

Stop falling on vacuum cleaners to protect the NHS


----------



## Drago (8 Nov 2020)

Well, what kind of fool leaves a cucumber at the bottom of the stairs when they know I like vacuuming naked?


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Well, what kind of fool leaves a cucumber at the bottom of the stairs when they know I like vacuuming naked?


And you do it so often that they stopped making medical gowns that do up at the back? 

Anyway, back on topic, at least it wasn't a seatpost.


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Modern cars are stuffed with electronic driver aids which make a lot of motorists think they are better drivers than they actually are, no matter how clumsily and ineptly they pilot their vehicle. I really learned the basics of driving on some old motors, with crossply tyres, drum brakes, and nothing in the way of arse-saving driver aids. It made you very aware of the limits of tyre grip and the risk of locking up wheels braking clumsily. When I came to do my car driving test it was in a modern tin box with servo disc brakes and it felt like driving a jelly compared to a leaf sprung Land Rover and Bedford TK lorry.



Quite. I did love hooning round a track in a Nissan GTR recently - the car was incredibly fast, but all the super computers kept it where it needed to be. Now when I got in the Ariel Atom, with no driver aids, I drove super smooth - one mistake, you are off. Both were fun, but one needed an awful lot more concentration.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Nov 2020)

AHEM, the petrolhead threads are thataway----->


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> AHEM, the petrolhead threads are thataway----->


Typical motorists - see any space allocated to cycling and they want to drive all over it!


----------



## boydj (9 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> ......................................................
> 
> And does the "tread isn't necessary on bike tyres" myth get much support in that club?
> .............................



It's not a myth. Tread isn't necessary on road bike tyres used on tarmac, wet or dry. And I doubt if tread would do much if riding without due care on wet leaves. The fall wasn't due to lack of tread.


----------



## straas (10 Nov 2020)

I've heard from a couple of people who have recently had reason to visit the MRI - based on what they've said, you'd really want to avoid having to use the A&E if at all possible.

Very little capacity, due to a number of factors. Increased covid admissions, staff having to isolate due to positive tests or close contact.


----------



## Hicky (10 Nov 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Is that not where the squaddies come in?


No


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 Nov 2020)

I recommend watching 'The Hospital' documentary on BBC/I-player about the Royal Free during the first wave (The first episodes broadcast a while back) and more recently filmed some weeks ago as they are trying to get mainstream operations etc. back in-play just as the second wave is imminent. It's harrowing stuff and not your normal infotainment feel-good prog. As a snapshot of what the NHS and its staff have to deal with on a minute by minute, day by day basis, it's quite eye opening....


----------



## DCBassman (10 Nov 2020)

I have not read right through this, so apologies in advance...
We are not here to protect the NHS, it is here to protect us. What WE must learn to do, pandemic or not, is to stop abusing it. What IT must learn to do is concentrate on healing the sick, preventing problems where possible, and not do things at all that do not fall into those two categories.
Having said that, no government has given the NHS the wherewithal to achieve this properly, ever. Not even the one that set it up...


----------



## Kingfisher101 (10 Nov 2020)

DCBassman said:


> I have not read right through this, so apologies in advance...
> We are not here to protect the NHS, it is here to protect us. What WE must learn to do, pandemic or not, is to stop abusing it. What IT must learn to do is concentrate on healing the sick, preventing problems where possible, and not do things at all that do not fall into those two categories.
> Having said that, no government has given the NHS the wherewithal to achieve this properly, ever. Not even the one that set it up...


 Abusing it? Have you required an operation or any really serious treatment within the last few years? Its not unusual here to wait 2 years plus for non emergency surgery. You wont even get the chance to abuse it because you wont even be treated. I don't think many people do abuse it honestly. Yes you might get people not turning up for appointments but thats usually due to lots of different reasons not wilful abuse or people being difficult.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Nov 2020)

The NHS is one of the most wonderful things that has ever come out of *any* UK Government, but it does need a overhaul, from the outside appears too top heavy, too much privatisation (money before health), again only from the outside too much waste, illogical working practises which even those working there don't comprehend.

I haven't a clue how to do it, but surely as we are paying some managers 6 figure salaries they should be able to work it out, we pay a huge amount of money to it, £134 Billion from a quick Google search, which broken down is only £2000(ish) per head of population.


----------



## DCBassman (10 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Abusing it? Have you required an operation or any really serious treatment within the last few years? Its not unusual here to wait 2 years plus for non emergency surgery. You wont even get the chance to abuse it because you wont even be treated. I don't think many people do abuse it honestly. Yes you might get people not turning up for appointments but thats usually due to lots of different reasons not wilful abuse or people being difficult.



My wife was a trauma nurse for decades. As much 75% of the waiting room in a big A&E doesn't need to be there at any given time. When a really big emergency happened, a nurse and a doc would go around quickly, and weed out those that could come back later, go to a GP, or not need any treatment. Education needed. Don't go to a GP for things you can do yourself. I could go on. I have relied on the NHS a great deal as I have aged, so don't imagine I don't appreciate it. And yes, I too have had to wait a long time for some things, others not. Luck of the draw sometimes.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Nov 2020)

DCBassman said:


> Don't go to a GP for things you can do yourself.


This is a difficult one, as I have known people die because "it's only a little lump" " I'll get better, I'm just under the weather" but do agree with the amount that are there when they shouldn't, but that is today's society, just like ringing the Police when they've locked their keys in the car, to the selfish that is an emergency.


----------



## icowden (10 Nov 2020)

Phaeton said:


> I haven't a clue how to do it, but surely as we are paying some managers 6 figure salaries they should be able to work it out, we pay a huge amount of money to it, £134 Billion from a quick Google search, which broken down is only £2000(ish) per head of population.



There are no NHS Managers earning 6 figure salaries, unless their post is outside of the National Payscales (this can happen, but it is usually at the arms lengh bodies like NHS England, NHS Digital etc). The simple way to save money is to actually have a sane government with a long term strategy. NPFiT for example is often written off as a failure, but in some areas it worked reasonably well. 

We are now reduced to "internal markets" where no-one shares and no-one talks to each other. For example NHS England have invested in clinical hubs for Child Health Data to improve communication between Trusts. This is a multi-million pound project. However they did it without working with NHS Digital who are about to bring online a multimillion pound project to improve communication of Child Health and other data between Trusts...

Poor procurement is an issue as is the number of tech companies producing substandard products, which then means the NHS have to pay to remediate and work around issues. 

Then you have the issue with Pay Caps that were brought in to avoid the rising costs of Nursing. As these are indiscriminate they apply across the whole NHS. The result is that anyone with advanced IT Skills has moved to the private sector or become a contractor. The NHS then recruits contractors for Projects rather than using in house staff as they just don't have any, and ends up paying more than they would have done if they could offer market rates.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (10 Nov 2020)

DCBassman said:


> My wife was a trauma nurse for decades. As much 75% of the waiting room in a big A&E doesn't need to be there at any given time. When a really big emergency happened, a nurse and a doc would go around quickly, and weed out those that could come back later, go to a GP, or not need any treatment. Education needed. Don't go to a GP for things you can do yourself. I could go on. I have relied on the NHS a great deal as I have aged, so don't imagine I don't appreciate it. And yes, I too have had to wait a long time for some things, others not. Luck of the draw sometimes.


 The thing is if people actually had better access to G.Ps and dentists on the NHS then they wouldn't be getting so desperate that they ended up in A and E. Something small can end up being life threatening if its not treated in time. Also when they set up non emergency drop in medical centres these need to be in places that the majority can get to like the City Centre or on major bus routes. Here people dont go to them often because they cant get there.


----------



## mjr (10 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Also when they set up non emergency drop in medical centres these need to be in places that the majority can get to like the City Centre or on major bus routes. Here people dont go to them often because they cant get there.


Yes yes yes! This is so widely overlooked and when I raise healthcare transport links in various consultations, I'm told something like "it doesn't matter because everybody drives" which firstly is demonstrably untrue with some parts of the borough having <50% of households having access to a car; and secondly, sometimes when I've been ill enough to need urgent care, I either could not drive, or probably should not drive (due to muscle spasms once) and I doubt that's so rare.

Heck, I think I couldn't even get to my GP or dentist and back in less than half a day if I didn't use a car or a bike and I'm only 2½ miles from the edge of town, so there are plenty of homes more remote than mine.


----------



## fossyant (10 Nov 2020)

Well I'm out MTB'ing in the dark tomorrow down some of the best local descents we can chuck into a quick two hours. Hoping to avoid A&E as I've not ridden these descents in the dark  (I know them well in the daylight) ! Got my best lights charging.  Just got to watch out for rabid weresheep !


----------



## Drago (10 Nov 2020)

Ive given up both shark wrestling and mercenary work until the Covid crisis is over.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Nov 2020)

I’m trying to give up dancing naked on motorways in the rain during lockdown.


----------



## Drago (10 Nov 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> I’m trying to give up dancing naked on motorways in the rain during lockdown.


What, even the bacofoil clad thunderstorm dance?


----------



## classic33 (10 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Abusing it? Have you required an operation or any really serious treatment within the last few years? Its not unusual here to wait 2 years plus for non emergency surgery. You wont even get the chance to abuse it because you wont even be treated. I don't think many people do abuse it honestly. Yes you might get people not turning up for appointments but thats usually due to lots of different reasons not wilful abuse or people being difficult.


You'll not have been in an A&E in the early hours then. I've seen staff hit, requiring treatment, and spat at(often the person doing the spitting has no other means of hitting out). And still they treat them.

Worse thing is, there's some staff who have known it no different.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> What, even the bacofoil clad thunderstorm dance?



Yep even that with the pith helmet on


----------



## DCBassman (10 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> The thing is if people actually had better access to G.Ps and dentists on the NHS then they wouldn't be getting so desperate that they ended up in A and E. Something small can end up being life threatening if its not treated in time.


Totally agree with that. Got to have good access.


----------



## Brooks (11 Nov 2020)

We need far better access to G.Ps than we currently get, prior to lockdown it was 3 weeks wait for an appointment at mine.Surgeries need to be open longer hours and have blood tests available two or three times a week. They should really be minor injuries centres that would take the pressure away from the local A&E.


----------



## Phaeton (11 Nov 2020)

Brooks said:


> We need far better access to G.Ps than we currently get, prior to lockdown it was 3 weeks wait for an appointment at mine.Surgeries need to be open longer hours and have blood tests available two or three times a week. They should really be minor injuries centres that would take the pressure away from the local A&E.


They are now cost centres with so called business managers in charge, providing health care is now secondary, making money is their primary function it now seems, so many layers of red tape have been introduced the Russians would be proud.


----------



## PaulSB (11 Nov 2020)

Brooks said:


> We need far better access to G.Ps than we currently get, prior to lockdown it was 3 weeks wait for an appointment at mine.Surgeries need to be open longer hours and have blood tests available two or three times a week. They should really be minor injuries centres that would take the pressure away from the local A&E.


I quite agree that better access is required. On the blood tests point this may well be available "on demand" via the practice nurse.

My rural GP practice has someone in this position who deals with many different things which don't require a GP's attention - blood tests, vaccinations, overseas travel jabs and annual health checks as examples.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Nov 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Ever tried golf on a bike?



There's bicycle polo. That must be fairly dangerous. I heard two riders drowned only last week


----------



## Phaeton (11 Nov 2020)

Profpointy said:


> There's bicycle polo. That must be fairly dangerous. I heard two riders drowned only last week


What about the horses, how do you train them to ride the bikes?


----------



## mjr (11 Nov 2020)

Brooks said:


> We need far better access to G.Ps than we currently get, prior to lockdown it was 3 weeks wait for an appointment at mine.


Same day when needed generally at mine this year, but I'd agree that everywhere should have this level of service.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (11 Nov 2020)

My two most recent GP appointments have been over the phone, which is a great way if practicable.


----------



## Phaeton (11 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> Same day when needed generally at mine this year, but I'd agree that everywhere should have this level of service.


Ours now triaged via an online form, followed up by a phone call (as above) which I would hope filter out some of the people who shouldn't really be attending. But I would imagine it won't suit everybody


----------



## vickster (11 Nov 2020)

My last appointment with the GP nurse couldn't possibly be virtual  I was invited to make an appointment by text and letter

I have had Zoom appointments with a physio (to triage prior to in-person) and a surgeon though (the latter had to be followed by in-person so wasn't ideal) and a telephone follow up with another surgeon (which may also need a face-face follow up) (all privately, not NHS)

Tele-medicine has its place certainly but not for all issues/situations


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Nov 2020)

Phaeton said:


> What about the horses, how do you train them to ride the bikes?



Think they start with stabilisers


----------



## Drago (11 Nov 2020)

Tail End Charlie said:


> My two most recent GP appointments have been over the phone, which is a great way if practicable.


Aye, but when your phone is as big as mine the prostate exam can make your eyes water.


----------



## Julia9054 (11 Nov 2020)

Sometimes phone and video calls are better. Al needed advice on what over the counter antihistamines he could take that wouldn’t clash with his bp meds. GP phoned back same day. In the olden days he would have had to make an appointment. Son had a sore throat, GP could diagnose tonsillitis and prescribe antibiotics after he stuck his phone camera down his throat. My mum found a lump in her breast. The GP spoke to her on the phone the same day and referred her without needing to see her. 
At my surgery, they seem to be able to speak to you on the phone the same day. You would never have been able to get a same day face to face appointment.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Aye, but when your phone is as big as mine the prostate exam can make your eyes water.



Was this you?

https://apple.news/AqipPFLvaRaKLs4koOvVWLQ


----------



## matticus (11 Nov 2020)

At the risk of swerving back to the original topic (briefly, please):

View: https://twitter.com/Kentroadsafety/status/1326207997169856513?s=20


----------



## newfhouse (12 Nov 2020)

matticus said:


> At the risk of swerving back to the original topic (briefly, please):
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/Kentroadsafety/status/1326207997169856513?s=20



Am I alone in being slightly put out that this is pitched as being for the benefit of the NHS rather than the otherwise maimed pedestrians and cyclists? Presumably once the current bed shortage is over all the Kentish motorists can return to driving with gay abandon.

Edit to add: I’ve just seen their earlier victim blaming tweet about the need for cyclists to dress like bin men. Even worse.

View: https://twitter.com/Kentroadsafety/status/1326119672933183490


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Nov 2020)

newfhouse said:


> Am I alone in being slightly put out that this is pitched as being for the benefit of the NHS rather than the otherwise maimed pedestrians and cyclists?



Or the Kent coppers could simply be being grimly realistic:

'We know you couldn't give a toss about cyclists and pedestrians, but try to avoid hitting them for the sake of the NHS.'


----------



## icowden (14 Nov 2020)

Phaeton said:


> They are now cost centres with so called business managers in charge, providing health care is now secondary, making money is their primary function it now seems, so many layers of red tape have been introduced the Russians would be proud.



That's not *quite* true. What *is* true is that when Blair was in charge, funding got changed a *lot*. Instead of just being commissioned by the NHS to provide medical services, Practice based commissioning was introduced. This meant that GP practices could bid to provide Primary Care Services in addition to their core functions. Then in 2010/11 under Cameron, this was enhanced even further allowing GP Partners to essentially become self-employed and take "drawings" from their businesses out of profits, thus allowing GP partners to earn more than salaried GPs. To ensure profitability the role of Practice Manager has been somewhat changed in function to be more like a business manager.

So, providing healthcare is still the primary function of a GP practice as that is the key source of funding. It's just that Practices can negotiate to provide additional services which carry additional funding, and if they can deliver healthcare more cheaply then the partners can make more money.

It is argued that this system delivers best value for the tax payer.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Nov 2020)

icowden said:


> That's not *quite* true.


But like a lot of untruths it is build on facts & experiences


icowden said:


> It is argued that this system delivers best value for the tax payer.


It could also be argued that the services provided & the method of delivery is done to maximise the profit of the partners in favour of what is best for it's clients, customers, or whatever buzzword they want to use instead of patients.


----------



## DCBassman (14 Nov 2020)

icowden said:


> That's not *quite* true. What *is* true is that when Blair was in charge, funding got changed a *lot*. Instead of just being commissioned by the NHS to provide medical services, Practice based commissioning was introduced. This meant that GP practices could bid to provide Primary Care Services in addition to their core functions. Then in 2010/11 under Cameron, this was enhanced even further allowing GP Partners to essentially become self-employed and take "drawings" from their businesses out of profits, thus allowing GP partners to earn more than salaried GPs. To ensure profitability the role of Practice Manager has been somewhat changed in function to be more like a business manager.
> 
> So, providing healthcare is still the primary function of a GP practice as that is the key source of funding. It's just that Practices can negotiate to provide additional services which carry additional funding, and if they can deliver healthcare more cheaply then the partners can make more money.
> 
> *It is argued that this system delivers best value for the tax payer.*


And, from a great deal of personal experience, at more than one practice, it also delivers worst service for patients. I am certainly one who would remove ALL private enterprise from the NHS. Money anywhere in the equation means patients are not the first priority. Jeez, it's why the whole thing was dreamed up in the first place...


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2020)

Private enterprise has failed to universally deliver reliable, quality services, or value for money, in local authority outsourcing. That being the case, I cannot see reason beyond blind ideology and avaricious self interest why any politician thought things would be any different in the NHS.


----------



## DCBassman (14 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> cannot see reason beyond blind ideology and avaricious self interest


The exact reason it happens. It's never any good for anyone but the contract winner...


----------



## newfhouse (14 Nov 2020)

DCBassman said:


> It's never any good for anyone but the contract winner...


Not quite true. These companies all seem to need consultants and advisers who also happen to be MPs.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Nov 2020)

Profpointy said:


> There's bicycle polo. That must be fairly dangerous. I heard two riders drowned only last week



Rode off edge of polo pitch into a lake?


----------



## Mike_P (14 Nov 2020)

Problem in the public sector it is now seemingly compulsory to review services every x years resulting in interview show ponies getting promoted beyond their competence, and consultants then brought it to work out how to improve the service as the review has resulted in exactly the opposite to its aims, with outsourcing or public private partnership being promoted.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Nov 2020)

Went swinging a rope tied to branches above a river to protect the NHS today


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (14 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Private enterprise has failed to universally deliver reliable, quality services, or value for money, in local authority outsourcing. That being the case, I cannot see reason beyond blind ideology and avaricious self interest why any politician thought things would be any different in the NHS.



As a capitalist I'm all in favour of people making profits. but not when it comes to public services. Those should be run by the public sector, but without the dead wood, and public satisfaction with the service should be the performance benchmark, not "efficiency" against some arbitary yardstick.
The problem with introducing private enterprise into public services is you end up incentivising the wrong behaviours, which means things get done to maximise bonus payments or other rewards, rather than just giving the punters the best service that their taxes are ultimately paying for.


----------



## classic33 (14 Nov 2020)

Would more backsides on saddles, on bikes on the roads, making cycling more visible be one way of starting to reducing casualties amongst cyclists?


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2020)

Making motorists actually look properly would likely have a greater benefit.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Nov 2020)

Drago said:


> Making motorists actually look properly would likely have a greater benefit.



That sounds a bit radical.


----------



## BurningLegs (14 Nov 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But like a lot of untruths it is build on facts & experiences
> It could also be argued that the services provided & the method of delivery is done to maximise the profit of the partners in favour of what is best for it's clients, customers, or whatever buzzword they want to use instead of patients.


Opportunities??


----------



## classic33 (14 Nov 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> That sounds a bit radical.


If that's what it takes, why not.


----------



## Andy in Germany (15 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> As a capitalist I'm all in favour of people making profits. but not when it comes to public services. Those should be run by the public sector, but without the dead wood, and public satisfaction with the service should be the performance benchmark, not "efficiency" against some arbitary yardstick.
> The problem with introducing private enterprise into public services is you end up incentivising the wrong behaviours, which means things get done to maximise bonus payments or other rewards, rather than just giving the punters the best service that their taxes are ultimately paying for.



Here we have a lot of services provided by private or NGO organisations, which in the UK would be provided by the state, including a lot of healthcare and organisations like the one I work for in long term mental and psychological health provision.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this to be honest.

There are certainly advantages in healthcare: the structure of the system makes it a good investment for a local government to finance healthcare provision, because the wages of staff are paid by state or private health insurance, so once the hospital is running then theoretically it is a net gain to the local area.

My field is a bit different: local authorities have a legal obligation to finance it, and they licence organisations like my employer as providers. There are several large providers mainly connected with the Catholic and Lutheran church.

In theory, this means there are several providers with several different concepts working in an area and clients are customers who have the right to a place in the organisation of their choice, so they get to pick what works best for them.

On the other it can have exactly the result that you describe: as long as the upper management can sell their concept then they get finance and the usual cost cutting, paring down front line staff, and exploiting of loopholes exists here just as elsewhere.


----------



## Cymro74 (20 Nov 2020)

News story this week that SAGE believes many Covid infections picked up in supermarkets. If they apply their usual logic they will order closure of all food sellers. This will reduce Covid infections to protect the NHS. 
(Millions will die of starvation within weeks but anyone says so will be shutdown or fined)


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (20 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> News story this week that SAGE believes many Covid infections picked up in supermarkets.



It's stating the bleeding obvious that the coronavirus is being spread by people coming into contact with each other, isn't it? They can't pin the blame on people going to the pub now, so these "expert" idiots have to find another explanation. I'd say the biggest current cause in many areas will have been the Diwali celebrations, where the rules about intermingling were ignored completely and they all had a jolly good knees-up with enough gunpowder explosives to start WW3. Good for them too, they didn't let the miserable killjoy lockdownists spoil their fun, they just ignored them!


----------



## mjr (20 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'd say the biggest current cause in many areas will have been the Diwali celebrations, where the rules about intermingling were ignored completely and they all had a jolly good knees-up with enough gunpowder explosives to start WW3. Good for them too, they didn't let the miserable killjoy lockdownists spoil their fun, they just ignored them!


Meanwhile, in the real world, the Diwali celebrations in London, Birmingham, Leicester and Edinburgh all moved online.

I expect some flouted the rules and had multi-household meet-ups, but I bet more did on Bonfire Night. For some incomprehensible reason, Bonfire Night events were mostly cancelled instead of moved online and only a few switched to drive-in and a day early. The resulting meet-ups were sadly predictable.

At least for both events, they were mostly meeting outside!


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (20 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, the Diwali celebrations in London, Birmingham, Leicester and Edinburgh all moved online.



There was nothing online about the celebrations some of my neighbours were having I can assure you. The fireworks weren't virtual ones either, and they went on for days either side of the official Diwali date.. The only concession to the coronavirus was a lack of the normal Indian music, and the whole thing was more subdued than last year.


----------



## bladesman73 (21 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> There was nothing online about the celebrations some of my neighbours were having I can assure you. The fireworks weren't virtual ones either, and they went on for days either side of the official Diwali date.. The only concession to the coronavirus was a lack of the normal Indian music, and the whole thing was more subdued than last year.


Well down here in essex we had a problem with local chavs getting together and setting fireworks off, not just on one day of the year either. The indian community were quiet as mice.


----------



## Ajax Bay (21 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> News story this week that SAGE believes many Covid infections picked up in supermarkets.


Fact check: This contains assertions that are not based on reality and reflects useless journalism/clickbait.
" Public Health England (PHE) released its analysis of the NHS’ Test and Trace app between 9 November and 15 November [during Lockdown 2].
The data showed that 128,808 people had tested positive for the virus over that period. Together, they provided 9,789 common settings that they had visited. The most frequent location they went to were supermarkets, followed by secondary schools, primary schools and hospitals.
"Explaining the data, Isabel Oliver, Director of the National Infection Service at PHE, said: “Suggestions that supermarkets are causing COVID-19 to spread are inaccurate. Common exposure data does not prove where people are contracting COVID-19. 
“It simply shows where people who have tested positive have been in the days leading up to their test and it is used to help identify possible outbreaks,” she added."
It would be interesting to know what possible outbreaks have been identified from these data, since she says 'it helps'.
Should we be in the slightest surprised that a high percentage of normal people have visited a supermarket in the last week (during Lockdown 2)? Can any causative link be established between the infected person's visit to a supermarket and their source/location of infection? Not a chance. Now a Republican election rally maybe, or perhaps, meeting MPs in a non-socially distanced way.
Proportions of all common locations reported in the data:
Supermarket - 18.3%
Secondary school - 12.7%
Primary school - 10.1%
Hospital - 3.6%
Care home - 2.8%
College - 2.4%
Warehouse - 2.2%
Nursery preschool - 1.8%
Pub or bar - 1.6%
Hospitality - 1.5%
University - 1.4%


----------



## newfhouse (21 Nov 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Fact check: This contains assertions that are not based on reality and reflects useless journalism/clickbait.


Indeed. In other news, most road accidents happen within fifty miles of home.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (21 Nov 2020)

No one gives a toss about all this anymore. People are all just doing their own thing.


----------



## roadrash (21 Nov 2020)

I can assure you that someone does give a toss as you put it , but yes i also see many folk going about daily life as though all is well in the world. with no regard for their own or anyone elses wellbeing.


----------



## Cymro74 (21 Nov 2020)

I no longer trust the NHS or government to deliver. Historically, most British nationalised services have destroyed themselves through self-interest, inefficiency, centralisation, inability to change and failure to deliver services. NHS has gone the same way. 
It is certainly not the envy of the world, and is definitely not value for money. However the NHS is treated like a religion so we are unlikely to see any change - it will stumble from one disaster to the next until the UK credit rating falls to a point where can no longer afford the debt which pays for it.


----------



## roadrash (21 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> and is definitely not value for money.


suppose you ended up in hospital and they saved your life , would you still not consider it value for money , in terms of what you have personally paid through taxes or whatever, i certainly would ,...... maybe i am not seeing things as clearly as others due to recent events at home


----------



## newfhouse (21 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> It is certainly not the envy of the world, and is definitely not value for money.


It’s such a huge organisation that it will inevitably be a mixed bag, but overall it is seen as pretty good when compared internationally. What makes you say that it isn’t good value?

This is worth a read.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/the-nhs-at-70-how-good-is-the-nhs


----------



## Kingfisher101 (21 Nov 2020)

newfhouse said:


> It’s such a huge organisation that it will inevitably be a mixed bag, but overall it is seen as pretty good when compared internationally. What makes you say that it isn’t good value?
> 
> This is worth a read.
> https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/the-nhs-at-70-how-good-is-the-nhs


Good value? I know people who have been left to die basically and people who have waited absolutely years before they get their routine operations. I personally think there needs to be a massive overhaul through either really upping NI contributions or introducing private health insurances. People think they will get a good service if they become ill but its often not the case. Obviously if people are not in work e.g on benefits, very low waged etc then they should be exempt from paying. It was bad even before the current crisis.


----------



## classic33 (21 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Good value? I know people who have been left to die basically and people who have waited absolutely years before they get their routine operations. I personally think there needs to be a massive overhaul through either really upping NI contributions or introducing private health insurances. People think they will get a good service if they become ill but its often not the case. Obviously if people are not in work e.g on benefits, very low waged etc then they should be exempt from paying. It was bad even before the current crisis.


I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those* who suggest/have suggested and had implemented "cost saving" schemes before moving off elsewhere. But they seldom get to be seen. When one did make an appearance whilst I was in, they got some very simple questions put to them in front of the press. They didn't answer, nor did they stay long on the ward. They'd to pass me going back out.

*They leave medical staff with more work to do, but less to do it with(time and equipment wise).

Edited to add
The problem with private medical insurance is they decide what conditions will be covered, not you. If it's not covered, where do you go?

I've yet to see a private A&E department. Judging on the number waiting to be seen on Thursday this week, it must be an untapped goldmine. That or it's left well alone by the private sector for some other reason(s).


----------



## Andy in Germany (21 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Good value? I know people who have been left to die basically and people who have waited absolutely years before they get their routine operations. I personally think there needs to be a massive overhaul through either really upping NI contributions or introducing private health insurances.



Where have we seen this before?


----------



## newfhouse (21 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> Good value? I know people who have been left to die basically and people who have waited absolutely years before they get their routine operations. I personally think there needs to be a massive overhaul through either really upping NI contributions or introducing private health insurances. People think they will get a good service if they become ill but its often not the case. Obviously if people are not in work e.g on benefits, very low waged etc then they should be exempt from paying. It was bad even before the current crisis.


Yes, good value but far from perfect. I agree that funding needs to be increased as treatments and requirements are a moving target. I don’t know what private insurance would add apart from yet another way of extracting money into tax havens. What’s your plan?


----------



## Drago (21 Nov 2020)

classic33 said:


> I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those* who suggest/have suggested and had implemented "cost saving" schemes before moving off elsewhere. But they seldom get to be seen. When one did make an appearance whilst I was in, they got some very simple questions put to them in front of the press. They didn't answer, nor did they stay long on the ward. They'd to pass me going back out.
> 
> *They leave medical staff with more work to do, but less to do it with(time and equipment wise).
> 
> ...


It was like that in the police. Civilian managers whod never walked a beat in their life coming up with these wonderful efficiency ideas that invariably meant more work - usually form filling on a computer - for the frontline staff to do.


----------



## BurningLegs (21 Nov 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Fact check: This contains assertions that are not based on reality and reflects useless journalism/clickbait.
> " Public Health England (PHE) released its analysis of the NHS’ Test and Trace app between 9 November and 15 November [during Lockdown 2].
> The data showed that 128,808 people had tested positive for the virus over that period. Together, they provided 9,789 common settings that they had visited. The most frequent location they went to were supermarkets, followed by secondary schools, primary schools and hospitals.
> "Explaining the data, Isabel Oliver, Director of the National Infection Service at PHE, said: “Suggestions that supermarkets are causing COVID-19 to spread are inaccurate. Common exposure data does not prove where people are contracting COVID-19.
> ...


It could be useful to assess what % of the general population visited these environments in the week vs those that tested positive.

E.g perhaps 60% of the population visited a supermarket and 18% of people who tested positive reported a visit to a supermarket. That could suggest there isn’t a transmission problem in supermarkets...

If 2% of the population visited a care home and 3.6% of the people who tested positive reported a visit then that could suggest a problem.

I don’t have the numbers so those are just made up, but that’s one way that I can see the data being useful and it is completely at odds with the (flawed) logic in the press article!


----------



## classic33 (21 Nov 2020)

BurningLegs said:


> It could be useful to assess what % of the general population visited these environments in the week vs those that tested positive.
> 
> E.g perhaps 60% of the population visited a supermarket and 18% of people who tested positive reported a visit to a supermarket. That could suggest there isn’t a transmission problem in supermarkets...
> 
> ...


Care homes don't seem to allowing visits by family*. Which would make those testing positive either resident or staff.

*Thread elsewhere contains this that can't be linked to.


----------



## BurningLegs (21 Nov 2020)

Yes you’re right, those who reported to test and trace that they’ve visited a care home must have done so as staff, resident, or contractor...


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (21 Nov 2020)

Whilst I certainly wouldn't hold up the US system as an example (as it's about twice as expensive on percentage of GDP than European models), the British NHS is a complete mess and it really doesn't work very well at all. It's massively bureaucratic, poorly run, and extremely wasteful.
One of the biggest problems is the system gives people no incentive to stay fit and healthy. It's regarded as a free service and as a result is misused by all sorts of timewasters who really need a kick up the arse, not health treatment.
The funding model should be through individually rated public health contributions, not a flat rate on general taxation. The people that don't smoke, don't end up in the casualty dept pissed out of their minds or drugged up on a Friday night, and who maintain a sensible weight, should get a discounted level of contributions. All the idiots who clog up the system due to their behaviour should pay extra. Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are. People would soon take the NHS more seriously if the ones who create the burden had to pay twice as much NI contributions than those who take better care of themselves.


----------



## newfhouse (21 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are.


You’re on fire this weekend Skippy


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (21 Nov 2020)

newfhouse said:


> You’re on fire this weekend Skippy



Believe me, I'd save the NHS loads of money. All the clowns turning up with entirely avoidable and self-inflicted problems would be sent away with a nice big invoice to pay afterwards.


----------



## newfhouse (21 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Believe me, I'd save the NHS loads of money.


With 70 million annual checkups? No, I don’t believe you.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (22 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Believe me, I'd save the NHS loads of money. All the clowns turning up with entirely avoidable and self-inflicted problems would be sent away with a nice big invoice to pay afterwards.


 You wouldn't you know, all the people I've known who have required a lot of treatment have been fit non smokers etc. Lifestyle doesn't always come into it. A lot of illnesses are just random or genetic. The people I know who have died young through excessive drinking/drugs etc have not been users of the NHS at all. They wouldn't have even got to an appointment.


----------



## Julia9054 (22 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Believe me, I'd save the NHS loads of money. All the clowns turning up with entirely avoidable and self-inflicted problems would be sent away with a nice big invoice to pay afterwards.


Would you call injuring yourself falling off your bike avoidable and self inflicted? After all, you are not forced to cycle.
Or is it just activities of which you don’t approve
What about skin cancer? After all, if I had worn sunscreen more 30 years ago . . .


----------



## Kingfisher101 (22 Nov 2020)

newfhouse said:


> Yes, good value but far from perfect. I agree that funding needs to be increased as treatments and requirements are a moving target. I don’t know what private insurance would add apart from yet another way of extracting money into tax havens. What’s your plan?


How is it good value if you cant even get treatment? People dont pay thousands out for private operations because they really want to.Its because they are left often with no quality of life and in agony.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (22 Nov 2020)

Julia9054 said:


> Would you call injuring yourself falling off your bike avoidable and self inflicted? After all, you are not forced to cycle.
> Or is it just activities of which you don’t approve
> What about skin cancer? After all, if I had worn sunscreen more 30 years ago . . .



I think there has to be a reasonable threshold of NHS use. If you fall off your bike and end up in hospital once in a blue moon, I don't see it as a problem. If you are doing the same thing two or three times a year, then I reckon there's a good argument for saying you should pay more into the NHS because you are costing it a lot of money to keep fixing you up. It's no difference to car insurance; people who keep crashing and claiming pay higher premiums than those who don't. People who make very little use of the NHS should get a rebate on their NI contributions, those who lead unhealthy lifestyles or who keep injuring themselves playing sports should pay extra for the workload they create.


----------



## Andy in Germany (22 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The funding model should be through individually rated public health contributions, not a flat rate on general taxation. The people that don't smoke, don't end up in the casualty dept pissed out of their minds or drugged up on a Friday night, and who maintain a sensible weight, should get a discounted level of contributions. All the idiots who clog up the system due to their behaviour should pay extra. Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are. People would soon take the NHS more seriously if the ones who create the burden had to pay twice as much NI contributions than those who take better care of themselves.



That's one of those things that sounds like a really sensible idea, but is a very dangerous road to go down.

Firstly, it means that you could be paying a lot of money for one mistake all your life. You could argue that's just and fine, but it gets a bit grey after a while, and it's impractical. A depressed person who OD's once and can't work but needs more healthcare is unable to pay higher contributions, but by this argument he would be forced to or would be thrown on the streets.

And where do you draw the line? If someone has heart disease but hasn't exercised to the government minimum standard for at least 10 years, do they have to pay more?

How do you prove how much you've exercised? Perhaps we could chip people.

What about people who "choose" dangerous jobs because that's all that is available? Would they be charged more, bearing in mind that many dangerous Jobs are lower paid? Would the rate go up of someone in a "dangerous job" is injured? It would also disproportionately affect men because most workplace deaths and industrial injuries happen to men. What happens when people on higher tariffs lose their job for other reasons and can't pay the high rate any more?

What about psychological issues. Whose fault is depression? It can be caused by environmental factors, so can schizophrenia. Is a soldier with PTSD partly at fault because he chose to go into the army?

But that's a side issue really. 

The real question is how are you going to work all of these scales and yearly tariffs out for the entire population? There are upwards of 64 million people in the UK, so the NHS will have to potentially deal with setting tariffs for a whole catalogue of illnesses and deciding what is considered to be "self inflicted" and what isn't. Then they have to check patients once a year, evaluate each one, decide the "risk factor", set a new tariff, inform the patient, allow a period for appeals, deal with appeals, and then administer payment.

For 64 _million _people. You'd need a computer the size of Milton Keynes just for NHS England. And you want to _reduce _the amount of paperwork and admin staff in the NHS?

By the time you've done all that, how much of these new rates will be swallowed up by admin costs?

And the really daft thing is this: it's easy to complain about people being stupid and clogging up the system, but part of the problem in the UK is that the NHS has to pick up the slack because the general social system and long term care for people with mental and psychological problems has been gutted for ten years under "austerity".

Because the underlying system isn't there, then people end up in the streets instead of being in long term care, and they end up breaking things and hurting people and self medicating on drugs and you end up with the police and emergency services more stretched, so you've ended up with a worse system which is more expensive.

This is before you think about the danger of other genetic illnesses being considered as insurance risk factors. Some racial groups are more prone to certain illnesses than others. If parents have a baby with Trisomy 21 when they "could have" had an abortion should they then pay more for the healthcare that baby will need? That is the start of a very dark road of testing parents for genetic "defects" and setting healthcare accordingly. It's been tried before: don't try it again.

Also, how much is the extra for people who refuse to wear a corona mask?


----------



## newfhouse (22 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> How is it good value if you cant even get treatment? People dont pay thousands out for private operations because they really want to.Its because they are left often with no quality of life and in agony.


I have already agreed that there are problems, but your point was about value for money. Is there a free-at-delivery public health service in a comparable country that provides more for less? Who should we emulate?


----------



## classic33 (22 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I think there has to be a reasonable threshold of NHS use. If you fall off your bike and end up in hospital once in a blue moon, I don't see it as a problem. If you are doing the same thing two or three times a year, then I reckon there's a good argument for saying you should pay more into the NHS because you are costing it a lot of money to keep fixing you up. It's no difference to car insurance; people who keep crashing and claiming pay higher premiums than those who don't. People who make very little use of the NHS should get a rebate on their NI contributions, those who lead unhealthy lifestyles or who keep injuring themselves playing sports should pay extra for the workload they create.


£70 a night on booze isn't what I call a healthy lifestyle. And I doubt the private sector would be willing to take the workload.


----------



## Cymro74 (22 Nov 2020)

Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.

Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money. 
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Nov 2020)

Climbed another tree today. Protected NHS by not letting go.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Nov 2020)

Did a bit of vacuuming. Kept my clothes on. NHS protected.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much.


You should probably learn about the origins of the NHS in the mutual aid societies before criticising it from a base of ignorance.

Factchecking hospital ownership in other countries may surprise you: even in the supposedly-capitalist USA, the federal government still has to own about 200 hospitals to complete coverage, while even in very-much-not-Marxist Spain, government and charities own two-thirds of hospitals. In what countries does government provide no hospitals?


----------



## DCBassman (23 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.
> 
> Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money.
> Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.


And you fondly imagine insurance-based, profit-seeking enterprise will cover what the NHS does? Fantasy. It will not. In fact, it cannot, the business model cannot work. So you end up with a large slice of the population with no medical cover, being bankrupted by illness.
Healthcare is a human right in the modern world.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much.



All EU countries have to provide a reasonable level of affordable healthcare for their citizens; they may not all have the same specific system but they all have one.


----------



## boydj (24 Nov 2020)

Cymro74 said:


> Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.
> 
> Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money.
> Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.



So you would be happy to pay through insurance or other means as much as we already pay through tax for the NHS, then provide a considerable sum on top of that to provide profits to nameless conglomerates? In the UK we have a service where just about everybody gets the treatment they need, as and when they need it. Covid may have disrupted that somewhat, but my experience over the last two months refutes your argument totally - several hospital visits after a doctor visit, initial consultation, MRI scan, bone scan, CT scan, with a consultant visit to agree a treatment plan to come this week. I could not have asked for more and I've certainly had my money's worth. In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.


----------



## boydj (24 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Whilst I certainly wouldn't hold up the US system as an example (as it's about twice as expensive on percentage of GDP than European models), the British NHS is a complete mess and it really doesn't work very well at all. It's massively bureaucratic, poorly run, and extremely wasteful.
> One of the biggest problems is the system gives people no incentive to stay fit and healthy. It's regarded as a free service and as a result is misused by all sorts of timewasters who really need a kick up the arse, not health treatment.
> The funding model should be through individually rated public health contributions, not a flat rate on general taxation. The people that don't smoke, don't end up in the casualty dept pissed out of their minds or drugged up on a Friday night, and who maintain a sensible weight, should get a discounted level of contributions. All the idiots who clog up the system due to their behaviour should pay extra. Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are. People would soon take the NHS more seriously if the ones who create the burden had to pay twice as much NI contributions than those who take better care of themselves.



But the bulk of the people who need the service most are those who can least afford it.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (24 Nov 2020)

boydj said:


> So you would be happy to pay through insurance or other means as much as we already pay through tax for the NHS, then provide a considerable sum on top of that to provide profits to nameless conglomerates?* In the UK we have a service where just about everybody gets the treatment they need, as and when they need it.* Covid may have disrupted that somewhat, but my experience over the last two months refutes your argument totally - several hospital visits after a doctor visit, initial consultation, MRI scan, bone scan, CT scan, with a consultant visit to agree a treatment plan to come this week. I could not have asked for more and I've certainly had my money's worth. In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.


They dont at all, have you just made that up off the top of your head? Thousands of people here in the U.K die every year because they dont get the treatment on the NHS they need. The NHS pays out millions per year to families who have sued it due to medical negligence as well.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (25 Nov 2020)

boydj said:


> In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.



I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.


----------



## classic33 (25 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
> With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.


You extend this viewpoint to those who go out drinking as well, I take it.

I"ve seen the results of alcohol in many A&E's over the years. Along with the abuse thrown, sometimes literally, in the direction of those trying to help them.

I also count the effects of long term use abuse in this question.

Type two can be hereditary
https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/hea...lthAndWellness/conditions/diabetes/type2.html

I'm living with epilepsy, no other family member, going back as far grand parents and their families, on both sides have ever suffered/lived with it. Does that mean it's not hereditary by your definition?


----------



## Kingfisher101 (25 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
> With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.


Plenty of people get type 2 diabetes who are not even overweight. It can have a genetic component as well. Its not all down to diet and lifestyle. My Grandfather had it and he was very slim and fit.


----------



## DRHysted (25 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
> With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.


Using this logic it isn’t my responsibility to pay for other people’s children’s education as I have chosen not to have any myself. This comes across as a very selfish viewpoint.


----------



## Landsurfer (25 Nov 2020)

And as i write my wife is quietly sobbing in her sleep again.
Two essential operations due in February and March have disappeared .... along with the pain management clinic that helped her through each day.
Operations for spinal nerve block and a hip replacement have disappeared over the horizon ... 
I'll make her a coffee and assemble her pile of pain killers and nerve relaxants and help her to the toilet before i go to work and she gets the children up and ready for school.
What NHS ............. And don't crack on about covid, empty hospital after empty hospital ... ward after ward .. empty .....been there seen it.
The nurse on the steps of Truro Cathedral summed it up well .....


----------



## Kingfisher101 (25 Nov 2020)

Landsurfer said:


> And as i write my wife is quietly sobbing in her sleep again.
> Two essential operations due in February and March have disappeared .... along with the pain management clinic that helped her through each day.
> Operations for spinal nerve block and a hip replacement have disappeared over the horizon ...
> I'll make her a coffee and assemble her pile of pain killers and nerve relaxants and help her to the toilet before i go to work and she gets the children up and ready for school.
> ...


It was bad even before Covid as well for people having to wait years for operations. My Mum had to wait 2 years nearly for a total hip replacement when it supposed to be an 18 week wait!. They were hoping she'd die before she got it I think and tried to discourage her from having it. Saying she had a high risk of dying/stroke etc. She was falling over all the time and had no quality of life because she couldn't go out etc. Even getting her to the hospital appointments was difficult/stressfull due to her struggling to get in and out of the taxi.
Anyway, she had it eventually and is totally fine now and she doesn't fall etc, so her life has improved massively. I hope there's light at the end of the tunnel for your wife soon. Its really bad and you don't realize how non existent the NHS is until you or a family member needs to use it for a serious issue.


----------



## Lookrider (25 Nov 2020)

gavgav said:


> Absolute garbage. For a start, Serco run Test and Trace, not the NHS and secondly GP practices are independent organisations, not run by the NHS. Try working in the NHS and you’ll realise what a shoot show we have to put up with.
> 
> We were INSTRUCTED by the government to cancel all elective surgery, no choice in the matter. Now, after the experience of wave 1, they appear to be letting us run it locally again and we have the knowledge of what areas we can keep running, and what areas need to stop. Believe you me, there are areas that need to stop, to enable staff to be redeployed to help with Covid. And these are staff who are mentally and physically exhausted, but still they keep going. They also don’t want the applause, etc, or the adulation, they do it because it’s their job to be on the front line.


Well said 
Its diabolical to complain about the NHS ...when I guess..the complained
Were BORN in the NHS system to a mother that was treated by the NHS 
Had treatment throughout thete childhood and adulthood 
They likely went on to miss Free NHS appointments..demanded scripts for tablets available over the counter 
The NHS may have issues like every business ...but many of thete customers are yo blame for abusing it AND the staff at these establishments 
Who ho to work day in day out whilst many other workers do not want to go to there place of work


----------



## Drago (25 Nov 2020)

The reality is, as always, a middle ground. The NHS is indisputably useful, but is also healvily politicised in outlook and implementation. Hell, it even emulates the vast, creaking bureaucracy of Westminster.

There is a need to protect the NHS, but not from us. In terms of financial resources per customer its one of the hest funded organisations on the planet, but so much of that is spent on things that simply do not make a positive contribution to service delivery. If the NHS needs protecting from anyone its from the Golgafrinchan management, and the succession of governments that allow the situation to persist.


----------



## Kingfisher101 (25 Nov 2020)

Lookrider said:


> Well said
> Its diabolical to complain about the NHS ...when I guess..the complained
> Were BORN in the NHS system to a mother that was treated by the NHS
> Had treatment throughout thete childhood and adulthood
> ...


I disagree, people are paying for it and they pay a fair bit in tax and NI if they are a middle-high earner. So if someone is paying for something then they have every right to complain if that service falls short of expectations. I personally think its not very good and that you often have to pay privately if you need anything doing or wait for years.


----------



## newfhouse (25 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> I disagree, people are paying for it and they pay a fair bit in tax and NI if they are a middle-high earner. So if someone is paying for something then they have every right to complain if that service falls short of expectations. I personally think its not very good and that you often have to pay privately if you need anything doing or wait for years.


What would make it better?


----------



## Lookrider (25 Nov 2020)

Well your NOT really paying for it are you 
Your treatment and care is being massively subsidised and your contribution via a tax is minimal ...
A tax that a lot of people not working etc simply do not contribute 
If your were to pay for it then that would be via a private treatment to which like any form of consumer product you would be in your rights to complain about anything 
If anyone did have a minor ailment needing treatment ie physio or dental 
And did not want to wait for NHS treatment ..then with a little simple money management and being prudent by 

How many cars in household 
Hold back on holiday 
Cancelling sky super sports monthly 
Sky films subscription 
Cancel unlimited iPhone data ( wi fi everywhere )
Cancel netflix monthy
Cancel amazon prime 
Give up beer/tabs for a couple weeks 
Buy more veggies for home cooking ..
Then we may well find that those small sacrifices can go towards improving your own health by redistributing that money towards private treatment 

You dont always have to wait for years at all .that's just a complaint by complaners ...sometimes maybe yes 

I pay for physio once every 6 weeks for well being 
But cannot help notice that when I call for an appointment
You are asked to press 1 for NHS or 2 for private 
These private clinics DO TAKE nhs customers who are sent there by the NHS at the tax payers expense 
Ask around and you will find friends /relatives who have had NHS treatments at private clinics with a fast turn around 
Cousin of mine had knee surgery at spire clinic and now expects all their follow up and rehab to be done at the spire ..

We are all responsible for our own health first and foremost without expectations from the NHS


----------



## Phaeton (25 Nov 2020)

Lookrider said:


> Well your NOT really paying for it are you


If we're not where does all that money go?


----------



## Kingfisher101 (25 Nov 2020)

Lookrider said:


> Well your NOT really paying for it are you
> Your treatment and care is being massively subsidised and your contribution via a tax is minimal ...
> A tax that a lot of people not working etc simply do not contribute
> If your were to pay for it then that would be via a private treatment to which like any form of consumer product you would be in your rights to complain about anything
> ...


You're being silly now.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (25 Nov 2020)

*Mod Note:*

We are straying from the original intention of the thread once again and getting into the general politics of the NHS. If that's what you wish to discuss then a new thread in News & Current Affairs would be more suitable.

As a reminder, the original question was about whether we as cyclists should be more responsible for managing our risks to reduce the burden on the NHS.

Keep it nice folks.


----------



## I like Skol (25 Nov 2020)

I think the thread has run its course and is probably ready to be locked now?

The suggestion/discussion is not really about 'protecting the NHS', which most posters have taken as a opportunity to pile in and kick the NHS, but is actually about protecting yourselves, your family, your friends, your colleagues and also strangers.

This is an unprecedented situation in modern times, frequently likened to being at war and the suggestion is that we 'do our bit' (Dig for Victory?) by taking extra care/precautions to stay healthy and avoid taking NHS resources that may be crucial in saving the lives of any one of the people mentioned above.

Seems like many here would selfishly rather not support this effort and instead continually derail the thread and use it as a means to air their own political views and gripes.

It's a nice world we live in....


----------



## Phaeton (25 Nov 2020)

I like Skol said:


> This is an unprecedented situation in modern times, frequently likened to being at war and the suggestion is that we 'do our bit' (Dig for Victory?) by taking extra care/precautions to stay healthy and avoid taking NHS resources that may be crucial in saving the lives of any one of the people mentioned above..


Yes unprecedented times, but nothing like being at war, there is no correlation between the two, it's very difficult not to get Political, but the mixed messages coming out from the Government make it very easy for people to justify their actions.

The Government policy is as clear a mud, I had a bad accident 6 month yesterday ago, under normal circumstances I would have called 999 if there had been a signal, in the end a rode 1 mile luckily downhill to get a signal & called my wife who came & collected me. Again under normal circumstances I would have had her take me to A&E as it was I didn't I didn't want to be inside a hospital. 

But that is the only 'real' accident I have had in the last 10 years, so I'm not sure staying off a bike with the subsequent loss of fitness is the answer.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2020)

OK in an effort to get this back on topic: I find myself using cycleways more, especially in town, including some I normally ignored, in an effort to make my cycling safer.

I find this curious. I know the statistics. I know that, in general, as far as the statistics go, there are few significant safety differences in general between cycleways and carriageways that people actually cycle on, so why do I do it? I think it's because of "fear from the rear", that phenomenon that if you get left hooked or rear ended, you'd get very little warning. On a cycleway, I should at least hear most of them hit the barriers or strike the kerbs and have a second or two more to ride into the hedge or drain. I feel that cycleways put my fate more into my control, not the following motorists.

There's also probably some effect from the astonishing speeding during first lockdown as bad drivers exploited the quiet roads. Someone was done for 130mph or so on a 40mph bit of our road IIRC.

Also, I find a good perpendicular cycleway crossing easier to negotiate than most road junctions and we have a good selection of rail, river and park trails, so fewer junctions to negotiate anyway and junctions are collision hotspots... but that doesn't explain why I'm using more roadside cycleways.

Anyone else noticed they've changed riding habits?


----------



## Phaeton (25 Nov 2020)

mjr said:


> Anyone else noticed they've changed riding habits?


I ride on the road as little as possible but that has not changed specifically in the last 9 months, but I do feel that car speed has increased


----------



## boydj (25 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
> With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.



Even the bulk of the tory party wouldn't agree with this. While the NHS is far from perfect it is usually there when we need it, and if, as a cyclist, you were involved in an incident, the emergency treatment would be as good as you could get anywhere. More particularly, the staff you meet in the NHS are unfailingly kind, caring and competent - even when dealing with the type of people you describe above.


----------



## boydj (25 Nov 2020)

Kingfisher101 said:


> They dont at all, have you just made that up off the top of your head? Thousands of people here in the U.K die every year because they dont get the treatment on the NHS they need. The NHS pays out millions per year to families who have sued it due to medical negligence as well.



A tiny precentage of the total treated by the NHS.


----------



## boydj (25 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Whilst I certainly wouldn't hold up the US system as an example (as it's about twice as expensive on percentage of GDP than European models), the British NHS is a complete mess and it really doesn't work very well at all. It's massively bureaucratic, poorly run, and extremely wasteful.
> One of the biggest problems is the system gives people no incentive to stay fit and healthy. It's regarded as a free service and as a result is misused by all sorts of timewasters who really need a kick up the arse, not health treatment.
> The funding model should be through individually rated public health contributions, not a flat rate on general taxation. The people that don't smoke, don't end up in the casualty dept pissed out of their minds or drugged up on a Friday night, and who maintain a sensible weight, should get a discounted level of contributions. All the idiots who clog up the system due to their behaviour should pay extra. Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are. People would soon take the NHS more seriously if the ones who create the burden had to pay twice as much NI contributions than those who take better care of themselves.



But who would decide what each person pays? And where is the money going to come from to pay for all this extra bureaucracy?


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (26 Nov 2020)

DRHysted said:


> Using this logic it isn’t my responsibility to pay for other people’s children’s education as I have chosen not to have any myself. This comes across as a very selfish viewpoint.



Correct, it absolutely isn't your responsibility to subsidise other people's kids. They should pay for their own, and the more kids they have the more they should pay.


----------



## gzoom (26 Nov 2020)

For people interested in health care funding these articles sum up the facts. Read them and make your own conclusions on the scale of the problem and of possible solutions (if any).

Bare in mind these were written are pre COVID without world war levels of national debts.....

https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13561-017-0164-4

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw24HdKwnfKr7EaEXC1UoIY3

https://www.ippr.org/publications/darzi-review-interim-report


----------



## DRM (26 Nov 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Correct, it absolutely isn't your responsibility to subsidise other people's kids. They should pay for their own, and the more kids they have the more they should pay.


So those kids you don’t pay the education of, then can refuse to treat/care for you when they grow up and work for the NHS, defend you when they join the armed forces, or police force, or educate your kids/grandchildren because they are nothing to do with them, nice.


----------



## biggs682 (26 Nov 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> I’m trying to give up dancing naked on motorways in the rain during lockdown.



Sure there is a song about this 


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLSGYZpsg9k


----------



## DCBassman (26 Nov 2020)

We pay taxes that provides the great majority of our healthcare and education, among other things, the idea being that we all contribute to the greater good. This is called 'civilisation'.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (26 Nov 2020)

*Mod Note:*
Locked at the request of the op.


----------

