Covid FOI Request Results

simon field

Free Member
Feb 4, 2011
6,854
2,688
Number of people who died between March 2020 and September 2021 attributed solely to Covid-19 was approximately 17,000.

Of those, approximately 3,500 were under 65.

Average age 82.5. Higher than life expectancy in the UK.

Estimated number of excess Cancer deaths 50,000.

Just for info.
 

Newchodge

Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    Number of people who died between March 2020 and September 2021 attributed solely to Covid-19 was approximately 17,000.

    Of those, approximately 3,500 were under 65.

    Average age 82.5. Higher than life expectancy in the UK.

    Estimated number of excess Cancer deaths 50,000.

    Just for info.
    Source?
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    • Like
    Reactions: simon field
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    TBH - I suggest it's time to move on & get over it.

    Stuff happened. Decisions were made.

    some were bad decisions, most were simply split between various camps (with a hell of a lot of sway between camps)

    The PM did a job that nobody else wanted.

    He will soon be gone

    Life will continue.
    Agree with that Mark, but knowledge is power.
    It’s good to know for future reference imho.
     
    Upvote 0

    IanSuth

    Free Member
    Business Listing
    Apr 1, 2021
    3,441
    2
    1,499
    National
    www.simusuite.com
    Few death certificates would list Covid solely as this is the guidance to Dr's from the self same ONS, so if you have asthma or COPD or diabetes or anything that contributed to the mechanism of death it will be there - how many of us over 50 have nothing wrong with us ?

    From a public health point of view, preventing this first disease or injury will result in the greatest health gain. Most routine mortality statistics are based on the underlying cause. Underlying cause statistics are widely used to determine priorities for health service and public health programmes and for resource allocation. Remember that the underlying cause may be a longstanding, chronic disease or disorder that predisposed the patient to later fatal complications. You should also enter any other diseases, injuries, conditions, or events that contributed to the death, but were not part of the direct sequence, in part two of the certificate. The conditions mentioned in part two must be known or suspected to have contributed to the death, not merely be other conditions which were present at the time.


    Page 6 gives an example of how to complete for Covid

    Examples of cause of death section from MCCDs (including example of COVID-19 as underlying cause of death): Cause of death the disease or condition thought to be the underlying cause should appear in the lowest completed line of part
    I I (a) Disease or condition Interstitial pneumonitis leading directly to death
    (b) other disease or condition, if any, leading to
    I(a) COVID-19 (c) other disease or condition, primary adenocarcinoma of ascending colon if any, leading to I(b)
    II Other significant conditions diabetes mellitus Contributing to death but not related to the disease or condition causing it
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,346
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    Estimated number of excess Cancer deaths 50,000.
    And that death toll will continue to rise. The oncologists are saying they have never seen so many patients presenting at the incurable/untreatable stage. In world rankings our cancer outcomes have not been good, they are going to get worse.
     
    Upvote 0

    thetiger2015

    Free Member
    Aug 29, 2015
    957
    411
    TBH - I suggest it's time to move on & get over it.

    Stuff happened. Decisions were made.

    some were bad decisions, most were simply split between various camps (with a hell of a lot of sway between camps)

    The PM did a job that nobody else wanted.

    He will soon be gone

    Life will continue.

    Don't think it's that easy...

    Why were decisions made in the way they were? What happened to the protocols that should have been in place for this kind of thing? Why such confusion with government messaging?

    Are we to believe that the government have never had a plan for this kind of thing?

    Why are UK health services unable to deal with multiple things at the same time, they have to drop something to focus on something else, which makes no sense. You're constantly plugging holes in a sinking ship. Who is responsible for that?

    Why were care homes left to fend for themselves? Someone made that decision. Someone decided to put unhealthy care home residents back in to residential homes, where they were at the highest risk.


    "We were told categorically in March [2020] that people would be tested before they went back to care homes. We only subsequently found out that that hadn't happened," Mr Cummings told MPs. He claimed it was Health Secretary Matt Hancock who said this.

    We cannot brush this under the carpet. Decisions were made...by who?
     
    Upvote 0

    MBE2017

    Free Member
  • Feb 16, 2017
    4,735
    1
    2,418
    Needing money?
    The NHS has never had so much. Don’t forget the total debt being forgiven by the Gov, so generous an amount the idea had never occurred to Labour even.

    IMO decisions taken were on poor advice and data, shortly possibly over 100,000 staff might be leaving the NHS come April, since there are still 147,000 not double vaccinated. So just when enormous waiting lists needs addressing, the NHS could suffer huge staff shortages, whilst most covid prevention methods have been lifted to everyone else.

    The UK seems to have a very self destructive streak atm, even staff who are double jabbed are struggling to get their authorities to recognise this, to allow them to continue working. I personally know of four members of the NHS quitting come April, and another two who might not be able to work since even the NHS app certificate has not been accepted as proof of being vaccinated. Still, there are 5/6 weeks to sort things out.
     
    Upvote 0

    IanSuth

    Free Member
    Business Listing
    Apr 1, 2021
    3,441
    2
    1,499
    National
    www.simusuite.com
    I don't think so. If 44% of all taxation isn't enough then something else is badly wrong.

    Quite apart from the large amount of that budget actually going to private companies as PFI payments (this from 2017)
    The Minister of State, Department of Health
    (Mr Philip Dunne)


    Labour’s legacy cost from the 103 hospital PFI schemes entered into between 1997 and 2010 was a public sector liability of £77 billion. The estimated total NHS PFI payments for the financial year ending at the end of this month is £1.97 billion, and the totals for the next three financial years are £2.04 billion, £2.11 billion and £2.16 billion.


    Remember currently a large amount of money is being spent on keeping perfectly medically fit people in expensive hospital beds as suitable social care spaces/plans can not be put in place by councils & social services to allow discharge. Basically there a bunch of people causing £x per day cost to the NHS budget which should be £x/3 cost to a council

    he council have no money and as long as it isnt coming out of their budget they dont care that 2 times the amount is coming from the NHS budget

    Age UK were saying £2/3m per day due to 2750 people per day in 2019 (that is nearly £250 per day each)


    this is what happened in the first wave (and lead to care home infections)

    During the first COVID-19 wave, Discharge to Assess freed up 30,000 hospital beds, delivered a 28 per cent reduction in patients staying in hospital over 21 days and led to £451 million of acute bed savings and freed up more than 6,000 staff, including nearly 4,000 trained nurses.

    That has now stopped so those costs are back on the NHS and those beds are gone again

    Oh and as the UK's largest employer remember they get the whammy of higher NI in Apr even though it is theoretically to fund the NHS
     
    Upvote 0

    DontAsk

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,543
    3
    1,426
    Upvote 0

    IanSuth

    Free Member
    Business Listing
    Apr 1, 2021
    3,441
    2
    1,499
    National
    www.simusuite.com
    192/448.1 = 42.8% for year 2021 IF you include most of social care

    Tax revenue income https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...evenue and Customs,same period a year earlier.

    1. Headlines​

    Total HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) receipts for April 2021 to November 2021 are £448.1 billion, which is £106.8 billion higher than in the same period a year earlier.


    COST (note this is entire dept of health and social care and it will be £170bn in 22/3)​

    How much does it cost?​

    £192 billion

    In 2020/21 the Department for Health and Social Care spent £192 billion. This money is used to fund a wide range of health and care services, including GP services, ambulance, mental health, community and hospital services, which are commissioned by the NHS, and public health. It also funds some social care services, which are mainly commissioned by local authorities. £2.5 billion of the Department for Health and Social Care’s budget is spent on administration costs for the department and the health and care system, such as departmental running costs, regulatory costs and business services, eg, the NHS payroll. The total budget for 2020/21 was more than £50 billion higher than in 2019/20 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The funds raised through the Health and Care Levy and other additional funding commitments will see the department’s budget reach more than £170 billion a year from 2022/23.
     
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    I’m really simple. Whatever this general system we live under is, it just seems & feels really really broken. I can see that some things cost a lot of money, but we hand over a lot of money!

    So 50,000,000,000 EXTRA for the Nhs, or is that too many zeros??
     
    Upvote 0

    thetiger2015

    Free Member
    Aug 29, 2015
    957
    411
    I’m really simple. Whatever this general system we live under is, it just seems & feels really really broken. I can see that some things cost a lot of money, but we hand over a lot of money!

    So 50,000,000,000 EXTRA for the Nhs, or is that too many zeros??

    Oh, it's a very tangled web.

    The introduction of PFI under Labour worked to please voters but had long term problems and was ripe for people to take advantage, which they have done. The NHS regularly pays over the odds for things, because procurement is awful and long winded.

    The extra money, if it actually is contributed, will be dispersed among various private companies as part of a procurement process that puts private suppliers at the top of the chain.

    You could throw 100 billion at the NHS and youll get 3 pencils and a potato in return. Privatisation will just speed it all up, because thats what succesive governments have longed for. A fully privatised system that uses insurance as a back up and huge monthly premiums. They love it. They want it. It's what we will be given.
     
    Upvote 0
    Why are UK health services unable to deal with multiple things at the same time, they have to drop something to focus on something else, which makes no sense. You're constantly plugging holes in a sinking ship. Who is responsible for that?
    The post-war Labour government who thought that the state is the answer to everything.

    Needing money?
    No, they do not need more money. The NHS needs reform from the ground up and needs urgently to be taken away from state control.

    It is the second-worst system in Europe (after Malta) and is more expensive per person insured than the second-best (measured in outcomes).

    Key points and causes of gross inefficiency -

    1. Doctors and other staff are paid by the hour and not by the treatment.

    2. Hospitals and other clinical bodies are not paid by the treatment, thereby encouraging inefficiencies.

    3. Bed-blocking, caused by a desperate lack of care for the infirm, which in turn is caused by a lack of care insurance.

    4. Lack of specialist doctors. Most medical students become GPs who cannot treat much other than minor ailments but can still call themselves doctors. Elsewhere, you must have completed specialty training and have written a doctoral thesis to be called a doctor.

    5. Lack of other staff such as specialist nurses, radiologists, physiotherapists, therapists, etc., etc., etc.

    6. Lack of preventative care.

    There is of course a great deal more that is wrong - but all those things stem from those structural problems caused by the very existence and structure of the NHS.

    Health insurance is just another insurance, albeit a bloody expensive one. There are other models that produce better results for less money. The European model of having to pay for health insurance contributions according to your income, with rates for treatments set out each year by an independent body composed of representatives from patient groups, insurance societies, doctors, hospitals, etc. works brilliantly and costs less per person insured.

    The German Krankenkassen (illness funds) system is typical. The 76 insurance societies are strictly not-for-profit, as are nearly all hospitals. Every doctor must have completed specialist training and completed a doctoral thesis in that specialty. The patient gets an insurance card and this unlocks payment for the doctor and also the patient's medical record.

    If a patient is not satisfied with one doctor or specialist clinic, they can go to another. After that, if they start shopping around doctors' surgeries, they have to pay for the treatment themselves.

    If a patient fails to get preventative care (e.g. teeth inspected or general health check-ups twice a year) they may lose some of their insurance cover and may have to pay for treating specific ailments - terms vary from one insurance society to the next.

    You may opt out of the Krankenkasse system, but private insurance is far more expensive and therefore only an option for those who earn so much that it is actually cheaper. The Krankenkassen pay 60% of the private list price.

    The result of this private system is almost no waiting lists (orthopaedic surgeons being an exception at the moment with waiting lists for actual treatment up to three months, more in some areas) and a system that cost an average of $3,340 per person insured (2018 figures).

    The NHS - $3,400 per person insured.

    So keep fighting privatisation - there is a real danger that it actually works. And we wouldn't want that now, would we?
     
    Upvote 1

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    I don’t get why people don’t want privatisation.
    What we currently have is just constantly being patched up - why can’t it be Insurace based, and regulated?
    We don’t have state car insurance, why on earth would we want these people in charge of health??
     
    • Like
    Reactions: The Byre
    Upvote 0

    Scubadog

    Free Member
    Dec 7, 2021
    316
    52
    I don’t get why people don’t want privatisation.
    What we currently have is just constantly being patched up - why can’t it be Insurace based, and regulated?
    We don’t have state car insurance, why on earth would we want these people in charge of health??
    I am all for privatisation.

    Literally everything I have experience of working in, works better when privatised.

    We do a lot of work on sewage works and water plants. I know people won't believe me...but trust me whe I say water companies are a bazillion times ore responsible than private sector operators. Every one operated by the local council will be pollution 24/7...365, for at least the 3 decades...and all knowingly.

    Literally everything we do for the local council is an absolute fatce. It's a joke. They waste money, sheer incompetence whilst water companies are not all good.....they are significantly better.

    Every private medical experience I have had, has been fantastic. They naturally have efficiencies that a nationalised service can ot even comprehend.

    We have medical insurance for our dogs. They get the very best, world class grade level of absolutely anything they require, when they require it. My brothers daughter had assizes recently......to 5 days to get an MRI scan. I k wo my dog would have received that same treatment within 5 hours.......that's how bad the crap we have currently is in comparison. We pay a mer £20 per month for that insurance.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    I don’t get why people don’t want privatisation.
    What we currently have is just constantly being patched up - why can’t it be Insurace based, and regulated?
    We don’t have state car insurance, why on earth would we want these people in charge of health??
    Privatisation is not about it being insurance based and regulated. Privatisation is about getting a US style system where people go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills and people die because their insurance does not cover their treatable condition while provate health care companies make billions in profits.

    Privatisation has worked so well in the utilities and the rail service here hasn't it? It is doing particularly well in the water industry where shareholders have received billions in dividends and there has been no investment in infrastructure so raw sewage is regularly discharged into the rivers. That has worked well, hasn't it?
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    Every one operated by the local council will be pollution 24/7...365, for at least the 3 decades...and all knowingly.
    Name ONE water company operated by the local council. Also name ONE private water company that has not illegally polluted rivers with raw sewage.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    My brothers daughter had assizes recently......to 5 days to get an MRI scan. I k wo my dog would have received that same treatment within 5 hours.......that's how bad the crap we have currently is in comparison. We pay a mer £20 per month for that insurance.
    Did you also have private education?
     
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    Privatisation is not about it being insurance based and regulated. Privatisation is about getting a US style system where people go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills and people die because their insurance does not cover their treatable condition while provate health care companies make billions in profits.

    Privatisation has worked so well in the utilities and the rail service here hasn't it? It is doing particularly well in the water industry where shareholders have received billions in dividends and there has been no investment in infrastructure so raw sewage is regularly discharged into the rivers. That has worked well, hasn't it?
    So who should be in charge of it?

    Please don’t say the government - look at them!
     
    Upvote 0

    Scubadog

    Free Member
    Dec 7, 2021
    316
    52
    Name ONE water company operated by the local council. Also name ONE private water company that has not illegally polluted rivers with raw sewage.

    Pretty much every council operates their own sewage treatement plants, for many different reasons. Who do you think owns the sites on a privately owned council property, building or estate? Here's a clue for the uneducated (newchodge) it's not the water companies. This is classed as a section 10

    I will not name customers of mine on gear, but I can confirm I have worked with plenty if good privately owned water treatment companies.

    They have all be prosecuted at some point for some thing....but if I just tell you that the I have closely worked on over a thousand sewage sites and know of approximately 10 that had issues. All of them were being invested in to resolve these (hence why we was employed as part of the capital investment). So roughly 1 in 1000 were breaching their consent.

    Compare that to the councils....I have worked on 89 operated by a council....every single one was pollution. Every single one was knowingly not achieving its consent.

    The difference is, the water companies were investing millions....the councils, literally don't care. They have never been prosecuted. Their jobs are safe. People like you don't even k ow they exist, so why would they spend money to fix them?

    That crap excuse is why we charge an extortionate amount to councils. We tried to be nice. Tried to show them the errors of their ways. Aal you get is some Labour councillor thinking the know better than you. It's such a joke.
    Did you also have private education?
    Name ONE water company operated by the local council. Also name ONE private water company that has not illegally polluted rivers with raw sewage.

    There are no water companies owned by a council. But that's not what I have said. However, for your interest, the nearest, is Welsh water. They are owned by the government, not for profit. They are also one of the worst performing in the industry, on whichever metric you wish you use.

    There is no water company that has not been prosecuted....but that doesn't mean they are all bad. These are often complex issues, and sometimes, mistakes happen, even foe the very best of them. What I can say, is most are actually very proactive in complying with their legal obligations.

    And just for the uneducated (newchodge) literally every council owns and operates sewage treatement and sewage pumping stations (go read section 105 of the water act).

    I will not name my customer for obvious reasons, though here is some perspective. I have worked on over a thousand sewage treatement works, operated in the private sector. At most, 10 were discharging effluent outside of their consented permits. All of those had major capital projects being planned or implemented, costing millions to resolve (most of the time, that's why we were employed as contractors on their site).

    In contrast, in the last 2 years alone, I have worked on 89 Council operated sites. Every si goes on was polluting, literally all of the time. 1 had a capital scheme planned. The rest were just being ignored. They get ignored because no one even know they are there. Uneducated people, like newchodge, believe the water companies are the evils....and hence that's where they point their venom.

    We was employed by one council to carry out a survey of their assets....when we highlighted the pollution, and their legal duties, the local engineers agreed, but all we got was some labour councillor arguing that its not important enough to be fixed.....after all, when has a council ever been prosecuted for their pollution? Seems odd that the environment agency (government organisation) would be the invesyigator or another government organisation.....
     
    Upvote 0

    Scubadog

    Free Member
    Dec 7, 2021
    316
    52

    Did you also have private education?

    I have funded 2 degrees, 1 hnc, 1 had, about 20 other professional courses for myself and annually my employees atte d at least 10 professionally related courses.....


    So yes....

    I did attend a public school (if that's what you actually ment). Though, I can tell you, those who did attend private schools, usually attain a much higher level of education and often are able to demand much higher salaries in their working life. That is a well know fact.....thanks for reminding everyone that its not just health, but also education that demonstrates the point.



    Now.....can YOU name ONE example where a publicly operated anything is better than anything operated on private sector?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: simon field
    Upvote 0

    Scubadog

    Free Member
    Dec 7, 2021
    316
    52
    Privatisation is not about it being insurance based and regulated. Privatisation is about getting a US style system where people go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills and people die because their insurance does not cover their treatable condition while provate health care companies make billions in profits.

    Privatisation has worked so well in the utilities and the rail service here hasn't it? It is doing particularly well in the water industry where shareholders have received billions in dividends and there has been no investment in infrastructure so raw sewage is regularly discharged into the rivers. That has worked well, hasn't it?

    No investment?
    Where on earth have you got that misinformation from?
    Privatisation is not about it being insurance based and regulated. Privatisation is about getting a US style system where people go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills and people die because their insurance does not cover their treatable condition while provate health care companies make billions in profits.

    Privatisation has worked so well in the utilities and the rail service here hasn't it? It is doing particularly well in the water industry where shareholders have received billions in dividends and there has been no investment in infrastructure so raw sewage is regularly discharged into the rivers. That has worked well, hasn't it?


    No investment?
    Where have you got that misinformation from? I'm not sure what all those things I have been buying for the last 20 years on sewage sites were then? It lookedike huge capital projects on everyone....but maybe Newchoge could explain what it was I was building if it were not capital related infrastructure projects?

    Maybe you missed the fact roughly £9Billion pound gets invested in sewage assets annually?

    What people like you, fail to realise, is that actually, the issues that are unfairly reported currently is not down to investment....its down to climate change and exasperated by us, the uk population.

    The amount of rain has changed. We now get 1 month of rain in a day. We have all tarmacadam drives, built houses, built patios, then have all just dumped the run off from this into the sewage system.

    We are one of the only countries I the world that allows this. Still, new build houses, catch all the rain from all the new build houses, then just mix it with our sewage and send it on its way.

    It doesn't matter how many pipes you lay, how many huge concrete structure you build, you cannot treat rain water this way. That's why no other country does that!

    The water companies HAVE to invest in what they are told to invest by....you guessed it, the government (ofwat). They are not allowed to invest in anything outside what they are told to do. Actually, water companies live building capital assets....that's how most of them make money! So it's disingenuous to suggest they haven't or don't want to invest.

    And come on...I thought this was a business forum.....most of these companies are 70% geared. They borrow money through gilts and bonds. That's how they raise money, and how they are able to pay dividends whilst Still maintaining the regulatory capital investment.


    What is funny, is people like Newchoge demanding that sewage doesn't enter the river and that these companies should be put into the public sector. Just for simplicity...put aside the necessity to purchase these companies, let's assume they are given for free......it is currently estimated that to resolve the issue of rainwater, mixing with sewage and entering rivers will coat the uk around £350 Billion and take 2 decades. Entire towns and cities need to have their infrastructure ripped up. Whole building need to pulled down. Everyone's homes need to be reconfigured. It will take decades. Add to the fact that you still need to invest £10Billion each year in the normal capital investments, and the industry would be facing circa £500 Billion bill over the next decade. Do you want to fund the NHS through taxes, or fund separation of sewers? The government can barely afford one...now where near both. Do you really want of sewage to compete with the NHS for funding? Perhaps you need reminding that in the 80s this was the case....and the pollution was 10 times worse then, because the sewers always lost that argument.


    Look, you won't believe me, you read the headlines in the press (which have only just started appearing following a campaign from SAS). But consider this....for me, it makes no difference whoever owns andoperated them. We make our money regardless. I charge councils more, due to their sheer incompetence, so arguably that would be my preferred choice. But hear this....as customers, putting our sewage and water assets in government is a awful idea. We literally couldn't afford it, let alone the renowned performance issues with anything g operated by governments or councils.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Scubadog

    Free Member
    Dec 7, 2021
    316
    52
    Just to continue with this Comparison of private water companies and the NHS.

    The dividends water companies pay, is set by the government on a 5 year basis. The better they perform, the more they can pay.....makes sense right?

    If only the NHS hospital local to me had those same targets. Maybe then we would see that MRI scanner being used 7 days a week rather than the paltry 25 hours a week it is currently running. That's right....an asset we have all paid for, where there's currently a huge demand for its use, and a huge waiting list....today, on Sunday, just sat there gathering dust. It did so yesterday, and half of Friday. It currently try has a less than 70% utilisation!! 30% of the time, that asset that we have all invested in, that thousands of people are waiting to use....is sat in a dark room, turned off! ?

    We are business people....if you want to squeeze the best return from your investment out of an asset, just remind me...do you run it for as long as you can, or just for the bare minimum during weekdays?

    Note....the MRI scanner at the vets is available 24/7. Their shareholders get rewarded more, the more often it is utilised.

    It's simple...make the NHS run like a business (privatised) Make it have to earn its keep, and in return you will see efficiencies increase, wastage decrease and waiting lists shrink......because shareholders want their dividends! Thats how capatilisim works!

    Then, that MRI scanner would be going 24/7 with only brief downtime for maintenance. I'm not sure whats not to like about that!
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    4. Lack of specialist doctors. Most medical students become GPs who cannot treat much other than minor ailments but can still call themselves doctors. Elsewhere, you must have completed specialty training and have written a doctoral thesis to be called a doctor.
    You have quoted this before. Working for Italian clients with my ages old photography C&G certs I am called Dottore.
     
    Upvote 0

    Scalloway

    Free Member
    Jun 6, 2010
    18,427
    12
    4,194
    Shetland Islands
    What is funny, is people like Newchoge demanding that sewage doesn't enter the river and that these companies should be put into the public sector.

    Strange then that Scottish Water is a statutory corporation that provides water and sewerage services across Scotland, accountable to the public through the Scottish Government. There have been no reports of sewage entering Scottish rivers and coatal waters..

     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,790
    8
    8,044
    Newcastle
    Lack of specialist doctors. Most medical students become GPs who cannot treat much other than minor ailments but can still call themselves doctors. Elsewhere, you must have completed specialty training and have written a doctoral thesis to be called a doctor.
    You have mentioned this a number of times in the past and it is just wrong.

    Doctor is a title. In the UK anyone who is on the General Medical Council Register can call themselves doctor, as can anyone who has a PhD and has never seen a stethoscope. Every doctor, except those who have clinical authority works under the supervision of another doctor until they reach the one with clinical authority. That is, Hospital Consultants and General Practitioners.

    GP training is identical to that of every other specialist until the end of hospital-based Foundation training. It then takes a further 3 years, GPs can and do treat many conditions as well as referring for further hospital-based treatment if necessary. Numericall, most medical treatment is carried out by GPs.

    I accept that the NHS needs reform, but every reform that has taken place since I first worked for the BMA in 1980 has added bureaucracy and management levels and done nothing to improve the real structure. The problem is getting to wehere it needs to be while still providing a service. Adopting US style private health care will not help.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: kulture
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice