• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

drdel said:
Explanations would require some specifics which you would then cite as not relevant because I cannot go into the context.

Thus I don't propose to get into an argument to no purpose about the NHS 'business processes' and their implementation. I am not rubbishing staff who are working hard to stand still because of poor processes/controls.

I'm just saying the NHS issues/backlog are not just money unusual COVID demand
Click to expand...
:D:D:D
You should be involved in politics! Oh, hang on...You are/have been!
 
Last edited:
pauldj42 said:
Hence my initial point this morning about the NHS being severely under pressure for many a year.
The Staff at all levels have been taken for granted.
Click to expand...
Start working on the bad practices and then that will help. The example @Ethan gave is a nonsense. I can't see how anyone would see that as being effective, it is built in inefficiency. There has to be a method to look at these examples and sort them out.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Start working on the bad practices and then that will help. The example @Ethan gave is a nonsense. I can't see how anyone would see that as being effective, it is built in inefficiency. There has to be a method to look at these examples and sort them out.
Click to expand...

The process I described is there to serve a different purpose, counting every referral and piece of patient activity and screening it carefully. The fact it causes delay, inconvenience and a waste of time and money does not concern those who are only concerned with counting new referral numbers.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
I think you have pretty much proved the point being suggested with this example, unless I lost the point in translation. This is an appalling waste of time and money, adding unnecessary delays and layers of beauracracy into the system. Why does this continue when it is so obviously flawed?
Click to expand...
Actually, it seems more a 'flawed procedure' issue within the practice, perhaps simply correctable by passing such 'rejection' items to the GP involved (or 'a' GP) for confirmation. A little more 'beauracracy' involved, but less chance of such 'disasters'. There is a huge demand for access to GP, so such attempts at 'streamlining' is understandable.
 
Ethan said:
The process I described is there to serve a different purpose, counting every referral and piece of patient activity and screening it carefully. The fact it causes delay, inconvenience and a waste of time and money does not concern those who are only concerned with counting new referral numbers.
Click to expand...
I get that, it sounds like an accountant with a spreadsheet set it up. It's flawed in the bigger picture though, I think we all see that, and when that happens it needs to be corrected. Too often, not just in the NHS, shoulders get shrugged and people just accept that is how it is. We shouldn't just accept bad practice, it should be changed to become good practice.
 
Interesting pre-print paper on boosters and antibodies: Paper, and the twitter thread: Twitter

Short version: Boosters really improve response to Omicron with Moderna and Pfizer pretty good after 2 and better after 3, and J&J 9which we can broadly correlate with AZ) less good after 2, but boosted nicely by an mRNA booster. Also, Omicron is an effective infector, 4 x wild type.

Note: This is based on lab experiments and is a pre-print, not yet peer reviewed, but comes from high end scientists.
 
Ethan said:
Interesting pre-print paper on boosters and antibodies: Paper, and the twitter thread: Twitter

Short version: Boosters really improve response to Omicron with Moderna and Pfizer pretty good after 2 and better after 3, and J&J 9which we can broadly correlate with AZ) less good after 2, but boosted nicely by an mRNA booster. Also, Omicron is an effective infector, 4 x wild type.

Note: This is based on lab experiments and is a pre-print, not yet peer reviewed, but comes from high end scientists.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the time frame is for the booster to become full effective, is it a couple of weeks like jabs one and two.
 
Ethan said:
The process I described is there to serve a different purpose, counting every referral and piece of patient activity and screening it carefully. The fact it causes delay, inconvenience and a waste of time and money does not concern those who are only concerned with counting new referral numbers.
Click to expand...
It needs changing, surely people working in the service are capable of looking at it and making improvements. If not then are we saying the NHS employs people of such a poor standard they can't see inefficient processes and change them. If a process like that would have existed in my company some heads would have rolled.
 
Last edited:
GB72 said:
Or maybe people are being selfish and just going around hoovering up as many tests as they can get thinking as long as they are OK and can enjoy themselves then sod everyone else. People are not suddenly showing a civic consience, people are selfishly doing what they can to ensure that they are fine over the Xmas period, same with toilet rolls, same with petrol. Seems that there was no problem until people were faced with restrictions on freedoms. As the petrol situation showed, you can have all the supply you need but it all goes wrong when people selfishly want to take as much as they can for themselves and all do it at once. Hard to prove either way and probably a mix of both.
Click to expand...

Disagree here

We are told to test twice a week so one box lasts 2 weeks

However now we are told if we come into contact with covid (new one I think only need to check) that we must test daily for a week so box lasts a week

Announcement about this was made what Sunday night? To say from Tuesday you must test daily etc etc

So Monday a shortage of tests.. doesn't Seem a selfish Surge seems a reaction to guidelines changing and people wanting a pack in stock so they can test for a week and be ready to obey the guidelines
 
SocketRocket said:
It needs changing, surely people working in the service are capable of looking at it and making improvements. If not then are we saying the NHS to employs people of such a poor standard they can't see inefficient processes and change them. If a process like that would have existed in my company some heads would have rolled.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly and it should be challenged. But just because one process in a 'system' is 'inefficient' doesn't mean it 'needs changing'. The change involved/required might be far more 'expensive' than any subsequent 'savings'!
If you, in your CEO role, authorised/demanded a change to an 'inefficient' process that cost more than it saved, who's head do you think would be the target?
 
Just listening to Sturgeon on the radio and she suggests that the R number of the new variant might be over 4. Given that the initial variant had an R number of 1.5 (if I remember correctly) and we managed to reduce infections by 70% by having the full on lockdown doesn't having a new variant with an R number of 4 mean that we are up against it regardless of the restrictions that we put on? Not trying to sound flippant or suggest that we do nothing however if that R number is correct is there much we can do about the spread?
 
pauljames87 said:
Disagree here

We are told to test twice a week so one box lasts 2 weeks

However now we are told if we come into contact with covid (new one I think only need to check) that we must test daily for a week so box lasts a week

Announcement about this was made what Sunday night? To say from Tuesday you must test daily etc etc

So Monday a shortage of tests.. doesn't Seem a selfish Surge seems a reaction to guidelines changing and people wanting a pack in stock so they can test for a week and be ready to obey the guidelines
Click to expand...

Agree and this is the point that I was trying to make, it's not panic buying it's just people reacting and if you have households ordering 3-4 packs they should have been prepared for this before making the big announcement.
 
road2ruin said:
Agree and this is the point that I was trying to make, it's not panic buying it's just people reacting and if you have households ordering 3-4 packs they should have been prepared for this before making the big announcement.
Click to expand...

I think like most things in this country supply is very much a fine line with just about kept up with buying levels to maximize efficiency without waste

However like you say issues like this need thinking first

That said. I think with the situation changing daily it is hard to keep up even if well planned
 
road2ruin said:
Just listening to Sturgeon on the radio and she suggests that the R number of the new variant might be over 4. Given that the initial variant had an R number of 1.5 (if I remember correctly) and we managed to reduce infections by 70% by having the full on lockdown doesn't having a new variant with an R number of 4 mean that we are up against it regardless of the restrictions that we put on? Not trying to sound flippant or suggest that we do nothing however if that R number is correct is there much we can do about the spread?
Click to expand...
Anything that can be done most likely should be! Certainly better to attempt to reduce death rate. Of course, herd immunity - by survivors - would be faster - not that I'm suggesting that approach!
 
pauljames87 said:
I think like most things in this country supply is very much a fine line with just about kept up with buying levels to maximize efficiency without waste

However like you say issues like this need thinking first

That said. I think with the situation changing daily it is hard to keep up even if well planned
Click to expand...

Agree but surely with the announcement that you can avoid isolation by taking a daily test must have raised a few red flags re. supply. With the increasing cases this was always going to mean a huge increase in demand even without the standard testing that a lot were doing previously.
 
Foxholer said:
Quite possibly and it should be challenged. But just because one process in a 'system' is 'inefficient' doesn't mean it 'needs changing'. The change involved/required might be far more 'expensive' than any subsequent 'savings'!
If you, in your CEO role, authorised/demanded a change to an 'inefficient' process that cost more than it saved, who's head do you think would be the target?
Click to expand...
Mine for allowing it to happen in the first place. In that particular case where it can affect people's health or even lives there's no question on it needing to be changed. How much would such a change actually cost and more importantly, how much would it cost not to change it.
 
road2ruin said:
Just listening to Sturgeon on the radio and she suggests that the R number of the new variant might be over 4. Given that the initial variant had an R number of 1.5 (if I remember correctly) and we managed to reduce infections by 70% by having the full on lockdown doesn't having a new variant with an R number of 4 mean that we are up against it regardless of the restrictions that we put on? Not trying to sound flippant or suggest that we do nothing however if that R number is correct is there much we can do about the spread?
Click to expand...
From memory I believe the original strain had an uncontrolled R of three, the subsequent Kent and Indian were higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top