What are we "protecting the NHS" against?

[cromwell]

Just a thought.
Some people are starting to say that the NHS is here to protect the general population, not the other way around.

I can see why the government wants to protect the NHS, for political reasons. If the NHS did become overwhelmed (not that it was, even at the height of the pandemic) you might have headlines about patients "dying on trolleys in hospital corridors". That would be political poison. The opposition would never let them forget it. So we have our government erring on the side of caution.

Also their scientific advisors are. If they stress the worse case scenario and that worst case scenario is avoided, then they will claim that their policies were right all along.

But whilst we are locking down the economy is going to hell in a handcart and the NHS is refusing treatment to "normal" illnesses. This is very important; people will die because of this.

But why is the NHS doing this? Why refuse treatment even during the summer when the pandemic was negligible?

Maybe because of this reason. In May the Guardian newspaper published an article saying that 20% of the people who had caught covid19 had caught it in hospital. Other sources said 25%. A King's College London study in August said that at least 12.5% of patients had caught covid19 in hospital.

So we have from 12.5-25% of cases where a hospital infected someone.

That's not very good, is it? Maybe what we are defending the NHS against is bad publicity?
Because if all that normal hospital surgery etc had gone ahead, a lot more people would have died because they caught covid19 in hospital. And maybe NHS bosses are scared of the finger being pointed at them?

[Workingman]

Damned if they do, damned.......

Hasn't it been the case throughout history that hospitals have been incubators for infections simply because those already inflicted are taken there for treatment? It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the cycle was broken with the introduction of isolation or "fever" hospitals.

Unfortunately down the years they were done away with, partly do to their stigma and partly due to new drugs and treatments. I had thought the Nightingale hospitals were to be a temporary return to cover Covid-19 but they hardly got use, for varying reasons.

We now find ourselves in the impossible situation of attempting to "protect patients" and also "protect the NHS" and we simply cannot do both at the same time.

I was due an operation in April / May but a few weeks before I had a phone call from the consultant to say that as it was not deemed and emergency it had been cancelled. This was followed up by a letter explaining why and telling me of the new procedures. I have had nothing since. It does not particularly bother me, but for some people their "normal" procedures are life changing / threatening and they are the ones that concern me.

I do not know what the answer is for the future, but I can see big changes coming in the way the NHS works. One thing I will say is that if the NHS does need protecting it is first and foremost from its own mismanagement and the DHSC.

[cromwell]

If covid is the first of a wave of pandemis then a revival of the old fever hospitals idea might be essential.
Certainly current attempts to contain the virus inside hospitals failed.
Quite agree about the organisation of the NHS. I never saw the point of "health trusts" and the PFIing of hospitals is a financial millstone.

[saundra]

They might have the nightingale hospital s but have the government realised they need staff and every thing a hospital needs from dishwasher to surgeon I think not

[Suff]

The US is showing that only 25% of the hospitalised cases in New York are now dying. Younger people, more capable to survive the virus, better understanding of which drugs work, less time in hospital. It all leads to less impact on the health services.

With over 26,000 new cases in a day, yet under 200 deaths in a day, the whole situation is upside down from March/April. Hence the situation where a full lockdown is not being applied and only regional lockdowns are being used.

Let's face it, if we were only talking about health, then total lockdown would, eventually, bring the virus totally under control. But, then again, people in China died in their homes from lack of food/support. That is how _total_ lockdown works.

So we don't really want to control it, we don't really want to protect the NHS to the limits China did and the severity of these cases has dropped by around 75%.

When this hits the wider awareness of the community, people are going to be even less willing to lock down.

[Workingman]

If proof was needed that people are not happy to lockdown in the way governments expect then a trip round a few sites, even the mainstream, will show you how to avoid it. There are tips and tricks to get round every rule imaginable from pay-by-the-hour eating slots in cafes, pubs being turned into day offices with free Wi-Fi and power to a dedicated table, to renting geodesic domes that literally create an outdoor 'bubble' and more, many more.

It appears that we humans do not want to be cooped up forever and ever. Bending the rules is one thing, and that is what will happen, but ostentatiously breaking them, as some do, is another thing entirely.