Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Foxholer]

...
I said last week, I'd like to know what scientific advice they're listening to when they made the decision to soften the lockdown. Surely it's in the Nations interest to hear it and should have access to said info.

While 'of interest', I don't believe it's particularly 'in the nation's interest' how they arrived at the decision - as long as they don't act too early and 'R' goes back over 1. Personally (and happy to admit selfishly), I think they are doing it a little too soon, but I'm not privy to ALL the variables and data involved. Getting businesses back to (near) normal again is obviously a huge concern for the government but less so (directly) for me. Continued safety is my biggest concern.

 

[Old Skier]

In a word, Yes. If they're telling us it's safe to go to work etc then surely we as the general public have a right to know what evidence has changed. Or should I just keep schtum,crack on and believe what this government says?

Obviously there's going to be some sensitive information which I could understand to be withheld.

Bed time reading - about a week behind https://www.gov.uk/government/group...upporting-the-government-response-to-covid-19

 

[Deleted member 1740]

While 'of interest', I don't believe it's particularly 'in the nation's interest' how they arrived at the decision - as long as they don't act too early and 'R' goes back over 1. Personally (and happy to admit selfishly), I think they are doing it a little too soon, but I'm not privy to ALL the variables and data involved. Getting businesses back to (near) normal again is obviously a huge concern for the government but less so (directly) for me. Continued safety is my biggest concern.

If people have concerns if it’s too soon or not, the govt could’ve allayed all fear by justifying their reasoning for loosening lockdown. is all the scientific information top secret?

Me too.

 

[Old Skier]

. is all the scientific top secret.

Only what comes out of the fear factory

 

[Blue in Munich]

Heard it this afternoon and it sounds pretty sensible to me.

BTW have you any idea how arrogant your post sounds.
Scotland, NI and Wales are standing together against a UK government that seems to only listen to the views of one country.

BTW2 Sturgeon is polling over 80% support in Scotland for her lead on Covid19
How is Johnson polling? last time I looked it was 54% slightly more than half polled had any faith in him.

Apparently Nicola is wavering, so not so much of a stand then?

 

[SocketRocket]

It shouldn't be , period. Care homes should be an "arm " of the NHS.
I don't mean the NHS should just take it on as part of their costs and that it is as free as the existing parts of the NHS. No, it needs a funding structure worked out, but the running of care homes in terms of standards, quality of staff etc should be under the NHS.
The businesses have made enough out of old people's problems and their health should not be a source of profit for any in a caring society.
So, in effect, nationalise them - and before anyone starts telling me how nationalised bodies are not run efficiently , then please define efficiently.
Do you mean making a profit, before ensuring proper standards?
Or suddenly closing when the profits dry up and the "business " decides to go into administration? ( too bad for the old folk, can't help what might happen to them)
There are many on here blaming the government for the. Covid- in -care homes -problem, but who may baulk at the word nationalisation , but if covid has proved anything, it is that some institutions of a civilised country should be owned , controlled and run by the Country, for the Country.

There are, or rather should be, two levels of geriatric care: The residential home and the Nursing home. One problem is that the former often defaults into the latter.

Old folk who either prefer or need to live in a home where meals and housekeeping are done for them similar to living in a hotel is a good solution especially those that cant or dont want to maintain a house or need a little help in ther daily lives but are reasonably healthy and compis mentis.

If or when people become infirm, bedbound or suffer dementia then the residential care home is no longer suitable and a Nursing home where residents have a suitable level of nursing staff who are adequately trained to care and attend to the medical needs of such people is required.

Often Residential homes have people from both categories
living together in less than ideal conditions and with staff that are inadequately trained , this is not a good living environment for those that only require room and board and often results on inadequate nursing help for those that need it. It's not the fault of the staff who are expected to cope in situations where they have not been trained and are often employed on minimum rates of pay. There needs to be regulation to ensure elderly people in these homes receive a suitable level of care to meet their current requirements.

Regarding funding, if these people are our relatives then in the first instance it has to be our responsibility either though our own funds if we are wealthy enough or through their own assets where the resident has suitable wealth. What levels of cut off should apply is debateable and needs some rather complex consideration. The state will need to assist where needed and again there is no simple answer to this.

If there is any truth in Elderly people still with Covid being sent back to residential homes then that would be totally unacceptable but I am not sure if this has been proven. If covid has been introduced by staff then this is most concerning but I can see it's not easy to control unless staff are kept in quaranteen off duty, I cant see that happening somehow but there does need to be an enquiry and suitable systems in place to absolutely minimise these risks.

 

[drdel]

not a suprise to see you prouting this, after all it was the Conservative Gov of the 80's and 90's that led the outsourcing of care homes, where for a great many profit comes before care... a ticking time bomb

I guess the fact that Labour run Councils have a very significant funding input to Care Homes is beyond criticism.

 

[Hobbit]

?????? Do you really believe that Bri?

I said last week, I'd like to know what scientific advice they're listening to when they made the decision to soften the lockdown. Surely it's in the Nations interest to hear it and should have access to said info.

Do you really not believe that Stu? And the next question would be why don't you believe it? Without making it dyed in the wool Labour 'v' true blue Tory what basis in fact do you believe/not believe?

Just joshing with you Stu. Do I believe the govt has been open? No, and I don't expect them to. Why? There'll be unpalatable decisions, for some, that might need to be made that they would be crucified for. In an ideal world, everyone would be riding unicorns up Pall Mall, but just occasionally there won't be enough unicorns to go round.

Do I believe they have been honest? No. Partly because they might be asked a question that relates to above, and in that respect I would expect them to be a evasive, not lie. But equally its in a politician's DNA to lie. Some of them will have lied. Do I think the comment about the PPE will be here Sunday was a lie? Yes I do. Do I think the we will test 100,000 people a day by the end of April a lie? Yes I do. I think in both cases the Minister concerned was caught out by a difficult question they weren't expecting and answered on the fly. The PPE lie was horrendous. The testing lie was clumsy.

As for everyone being told the science; do I really need to know that the RNA genome sequencing is? And if the scientists started talking about antigenic shift and antigenic drift... And on it goes from there. There's loads of scientific guff that would be pointless to give to everyone. If you put that level of science out there you'd lose the majority of the population. How would you put together a briefing with all of that and explain the decisions from there so that everyone took it on board? And, as we've all seen, there's plenty of experts out there who will argue both ways. Putting everything out there will actually cause uncertainty as other experts argue for a different path.

BTW, all my answer above is apolitical, i.e. with no preference or bias for any party. I'd expect any party to behave in exactly the same way.

 

[SocketRocket]

In a word, Yes. If they're telling us it's safe to go to work etc then surely we as the general public have a right to know what evidence has changed. Or should I just keep schtum,crack on and believe what this government says?

Obviously there's going to be some sensitive information which I could understand to be withheld.

They did explain to us the guiding statistic in loosening lockdown was the level of 'R' has to stay at one or below and at the time they made the decision it was below one.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

There are, or rather should be, two levels of geriatric care: The residential home and the Nursing home. One problem is that the former often defaults into the latter.

Old folk who either prefer or need to live in a home where meals and housekeeping are done for them similar to living in a hotel is a good solution especially those that cant or dont want to maintain a house or need a little help in ther daily lives but are reasonably healthy and compis mentis.

If or when people become infirm, bedbound or suffer dementia then the residential care home is no longer suitable and a Nursing home where residents have a suitable level of nursing staff who are adequately trained to care and attend to the medical needs of such people is required.

Often Residential homes have people from both categories
living together in less than ideal conditions and with staff that are inadequately trained , this is not a good living environment for those that only require room and board and often results on inadequate nursing help for those that need it. It's not the fault of the staff who are expected to cope in situations where they have not been trained and are often employed on minimum rates of pay. There needs to be regulation to ensure elderly people in these homes receive a suitable level of care to meet their current requirements.

Regarding funding, if these people are our relatives then in the first instance it has to be our responsibility either though our own funds if we are wealthy enough or through their own assets where the resident has suitable wealth. What levels of cut off should apply is debateable and needs some rather complex consideration. The state will need to assist where needed and again there is no simple answer to this.

If there is any truth in Elderly people still with Covid being sent back to residential homes then that would be totally unacceptable but I am not sure if this has been proven. If covid has been introduced by staff then this is most concerning but I can see it's not easy to control unless staff are kept in quaranteen off duty, I cant see that happening somehow but there does need to be an enquiry and suitable systems in place to absolutely minimise these risks.

I have not personally known anyone in a "care" home who hasn't needed to be looked after. That is because they cannot be safe looking after themselves.
That is a medical issue. It is not a residential home issue. Those places are not abundant.
The residential homes like in "waiting for god" are not what we are talking about, and I think you know that. Those are , as you say, convenient hotel type situations, and they are not what are being discussed as being at perilous risk of this Covid.
Nor is there a blurring of residential home and care home. The distinction is easily made. If the person living there cannot look after themselves safely, or be looked after safely without destroying others quality of life,, then they need a care home.
However, because of funding pressure , the Authorities began some years ago to blatantly tell families that their aged relatives weren't a health issue, just a "care" issue, thus to to funded privately.
I even saw on TV one poor bugger, bed bound , barely conscious, with stomach feeding tubes who had been adjudicated to be a "care" case. Not a medical case?
This has to change if we are to stop becoming a completely selfish society.

Both parties over the years have failed to grasp the nettle, and things will not
change until private and corporate ownership of care homes ceases.
Political ideology supporting private enterprise in this subject has failed, and by its nature, was bound to fail.
Any PPE failure in care homes is not this governments fault. it is the fault of all governments who have permitted private care homes over the years.
The same response would have happened whatever Party had been in power when this virus struck.
Those businesses had the responsibility to provide because they were private. This government had first to provide for the NHS.Yes, they have got round to helping the private care homes by assisting and rightly so, but in the scheme of things it has been later rather than sooner, but they would have had things organised better if they had been under the NHS umbrella from the start.

Profiting from an old person's inability to survive without help , through no fault of their own, is abhorrent to me, and when put as plainly and as baldly as that, it is , I believe , to most people in this country.
Whenever this covid is over and the analysis of how we handled it is made, I hope that arising from the findings will be a determination that the infirm old will be looked after directly by the State as their condition warrants.

 

[SocketRocket]

I have not personally known anyone in a "care" home who hasn't needed to be looked after. That is because they cannot be safe looking after themselves.
That is a medical issue. It is not a residential home issue. Those places are not abundant.
The residential homes like in "waiting for god" are not what we are talking about, and I think you know that. Those are , as you say, convenient hotel type situations, and they are not what are being discussed as being at perilous risk of this Covid.
Nor is there a blurring of residential home and care home. The distinction is easily made. If the person living there cannot look after themselves safely, or be looked after safely without destroying others quality of life,, then they need a care home.
However, because of funding pressure , the Authorities began some years ago to blatantly tell families that their aged relatives weren't a health issue, just a "care" issue, thus to to funded privately.
I even saw on TV one poor bugger, bed bound , barely conscious, with stomach feeding tubes who had been adjudicated to be a "care" case. Not a medical case?
This has to change if we are to stop becoming a completely selfish society.

Both parties over the years have failed to grasp the nettle, and things will not
change until private and corporate ownership of care homes ceases.
Political ideology supporting private enterprise in this subject has failed, and by its nature, was bound to fail.
Any PPE failure in care homes is not this governments fault. it is the fault of all governments who have permitted private care homes over the years.
The same response would have happened whatever Party had been in power when this virus struck.
Those businesses had the responsibility to provide because they were private. This government had first to provide for the NHS.Yes, they have got round to helping the private care homes by assisting and rightly so, but in the scheme of things it has been later rather than sooner, but they would have had things organised better if they had been under the NHS umbrella from the start.

Profiting from an old person's inability to survive without help , through no fault of their own, is abhorrent to me, and when put as plainly and as baldly as that, it is , I believe , to most people in this country.
Whenever this covid is over and the analysis of how we handled it is made, I hope that arising from the findings will be a determination that the infirm old will be looked after directly by the State as their condition warrants.

First I should point out that our parents are initially our responsibility to look after and if we are able to look after them we should do so.

My Mother lived in a resedential care home for a few years when she found it difficult to manage everyday household tasks but she didnt need nursing help. Later when she became quite I'll the residential home couldnt manage her nursing needs so she moved to a Nursing home that had qualified Nurses on site who could administer her medical and nursing needs, I assure you these types of homes are quite normal. I live in a Spa town where people are reputed to move to to die, it has a great number of homes ranging from retirement villages to specialised nursing homes and as I explained previously some homes that are designed to be residential but have a mixture of people with basic residential geriatric needs mixed with people with severe alzheimer's and other health issues. It's not good where these needs are combined along with staff that are not well qualified to manage them.

We live in a mixed ecconomy where private business is run for profit and there is no incentive for private individuals to put their own money into an enterprise that makes no return, its unreasonable to expect them to do so. I understand the case for making all social care a nationalised service and we need to resolve this issue quickly, although people must always have choice if they want to pay for a better level of service, just like private health care.

 

[patricks148]

I guess the fact that Labour run Councils have a very significant funding input to Care Homes is beyond criticism.

of course its not, but as usual you just deflect, the fact the Tory's started this.... profit ahead people.... there's a long list

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Got a bit down last night after listening/reading some pretty pessimistic analysis on the way out of our current situation, the likely timescales involved and even the relatively low chances of getting an effective vaccine which I had naively been assuming was only a matter of time. It seems that the future has to be to find a way to live with the virus and that depends on (among other things) the ability to test people and trace the contacts of those who test positive.

On that note, the UK government is setting out lots of targets for daily testing, number of contact tracers, tracing app etc. But I've got a bit confused over what relates to the UK as a whole and what is just England. Anyone know if the 100,000 tests is uk-wide? And the 18,000 contact tracers - is that across the UK?

If not, does anyone know what the Scottish government is doing on these metrics?

General rule of thumb is that if a UK Government ministers is speaking on a health issue it should be England matters only.
You are not alone on being confused hence my bee in the bonnet about them making it absolutely clear whether they are speaking for England only or for the whole of the UK. { I actually think they get confused sometimes]
The Scots Gov gave the test numbers out the other day and to my very limited maths knowledge they seemed pro rata to England [using the 10% rule and assuming that the numbers quoted by the UK health ministers were for England only.]

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Do you really not believe that Stu? And the next question would be why don't you believe it? Without making it dyed in the wool Labour 'v' true blue Tory what basis in fact do you believe/not believe?

Just joshing with you Stu. Do I believe the govt has been open? No, and I don't expect them to. Why? There'll be unpalatable decisions, for some, that might need to be made that they would be crucified for. In an ideal world, everyone would be riding unicorns up Pall Mall, but just occasionally there won't be enough unicorns to go round.

Do I believe they have been honest? No. Partly because they might be asked a question that relates to above, and in that respect I would expect them to be a evasive, not lie. But equally its in a politician's DNA to lie. Some of them will have lied. Do I think the comment about the PPE will be here Sunday was a lie? Yes I do. Do I think the we will test 100,000 people a day by the end of April a lie? Yes I do. I think in both cases the Minister concerned was caught out by a difficult question they weren't expecting and answered on the fly. The PPE lie was horrendous. The testing lie was clumsy.

As for everyone being told the science; do I really need to know that the RNA genome sequencing is? And if the scientists started talking about antigenic shift and antigenic drift... And on it goes from there. There's loads of scientific guff that would be pointless to give to everyone. If you put that level of science out there you'd lose the majority of the population. How would you put together a briefing with all of that and explain the decisions from there so that everyone took it on board? And, as we've all seen, there's plenty of experts out there who will argue both ways. Putting everything out there will actually cause uncertainty as other experts argue for a different path.

BTW, all my answer above is apolitical, i.e. with no preference or bias for any party. I'd expect any party to behave in exactly the same way.

I totally understand there's going to be some unpalatable decisions to be made, it's impossible to keep everyone happy.

I'm sure they could've released info to support the decision to loosen lockdown instead of just quoting the R number.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Apparently Nicola is wavering, so not so much of a stand then?

For a while she has given the indication that some lockdown rules will be lifted by the end of the month, if it is safe to do so.
You are wrong, she is not wavering but being consistent with her long term plans.
The UK R number is now rising so perhaps it may be a while longer.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The Teeside Mayor has just been on BBC breakfast. We see him a lot on the local news, he is now on the national news. He has been front and centre on this issue, and others. You may not agree with him but he will take tough decisions and will back up why. He comes across as an impressive bloke.

Despite not wanting one, my area elected a mayor last year. He is utterly anonymous, has spent months gathering a team at great expense and we still don't know what he is meant to be doing. He is exactly the reason why we didn't want a mayor, an added level of bureaucracy and a money drain.

I guess I could have put this in the irritation thread but I put it here as the Teeside mayor was talking about the virus.

For those who have mayors, are they fronting up well during this? Are they making locally driven decisions? (Middlesborough kept their parks closed for a while for example at the request of the mayor)

 

[Slab]

Heard it this afternoon and it sounds pretty sensible to me.

BTW have you any idea how arrogant your post sounds.
Scotland, NI and Wales are standing together against a UK government that seems to only listen to the views of one country.

BTW2 Sturgeon is polling over 80% support in Scotland for her lead on Covid19
How is Johnson polling? last time I looked it was 54% slightly more than half polled had any faith in him.

There could be a point somewhere in the post but was the polled question really..... 'do you have any faith in the PM?'

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have heard so many people this morning imploring us to NOT travel to popular beauty spots or national parks that one wonders why our government has let us travel as far as we want...If they had to do it why did they not just limit the distance we could travel to say 25miles or 15miles. I guess they saw it as being a popular thing to do. Well of course they did.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

First I should point out that our parents are initially our responsibility to look after and if we are able to look after them we should do so.

My Mother lived in a resedential care home for a few years when she found it difficult to manage everyday household tasks but she didnt need nursing help. Later when she became quite I'll the residential home couldnt manage her nursing needs so she moved to a Nursing home that had qualified Nurses on site who could administer her medical and nursing needs, I assure you these types of homes are quite normal. I live in a Spa town where people are reputed to move to to die, it has a great number of homes ranging from retirement villages to specialised nursing homes and as I explained previously some homes that are designed to be residential but have a mixture of people with basic residential geriatric needs mixed with people with severe alzheimer's and other health issues. It's not good where these needs are combined along with staff that are not well qualified to manage them.

We live in a mixed ecconomy where private business is run for profit and there is no incentive for private individuals to put their own money into an enterprise that makes no return, its unreasonable to expect them to do so. I understand the case for making all social care a nationalised service and we need to resolve this issue quickly, although people must always have choice if they want to pay for a better level of service, just like private health care.

I'm not going to get into a I say-you say on this subject. My previous post said all I w anted to say really. But just two,points.
It isn't the children's responsibility, period. Because, there may be no children; or the children may be struggling to make ends meet( more likely today than ever- how many times have you seen " Bank of Mum and Dad" quoted.)
There should be a national funding scheme which negates that need for children to be financially bound. That doesn't mean non contributory.

I have made the distinction between residential and care homes, which you say doesn't have to be so marked. Well, let me ask you a question.
When your mother couldn't "manage everyday tasks" , was she a danger to herself ? Constantly falling over , or leaving appliances switched on which may have harmed her , etc?
If so, her health was in danger. She couldn't care for herself. She needed a care home. Same as you or I might be like in our own homes in years to come.Then , we will need care to survive.
That is the criterion.
"Waiting for God " residences are not under discussion in this thread, just as my home or your home isn't.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm not going to get into a I say-you say on this subject. My previous post said all I w anted to say really. But just two,points.
It isn't the children's responsibility, period. Because, there may be no children; or the children may be struggling to make ends meet( more likely today than ever- how many times have you seen " Bank of Mum and Dad" quoted.)
There should be a national funding scheme which negates that need for children to be financially bound. That doesn't mean non contributory.

I have made the distinction between residential and care homes, which you say doesn't have to be so marked. Well, let me ask you a question.
When your mother couldn't "manage everyday tasks" , was she a danger to herself ? Constantly falling over , or leaving appliances switched on which may have harmed her , etc?
If so, her health was in danger. She couldn't care for herself. She needed a care home. Same as you or I might be like in our own homes in years to come.Then , we will need care to survive.
That is the criterion.
"Waiting for God " residences are not under discussion in this thread, just as my home or your home isn't.

I'm trying to have a grown up discussion on the subject, it's nothing to do with 'I say' 'you say' I made an opinion which you disagreed with, I have replied to clarify some of my points. That's OK isnt it.

I did say it's our or the resedents responsibility 'if they can afford it' not period.

My Mother went into a Resedential home in the first instance because she was 90 years old and finding every day tasks difficult, she lived a long way from the family, she wasnt falling over or leaving the gas on she just needed some help with everyday tasks and the company of others.

I didnt say the differences between residential and care homes should be less marked, quite the opposite, they need to be distinctly different.

If you think my comments are arguementative then please ignore them.