Jump to content
Spam messages. Please stop reporting messages from Orange 15, Ivsa and Pupyh. They’ve been banned. ×

Newbie

Regulars
  • Content Count

    344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

277 Excellent

About Newbie

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Except that the organisation of the FoM starts in January/February
  2. The clue is in the statement. The vaccine works by getting the body's immune system to react and thereby develop an immunity to covid-19. If someone has a weakened immune system due to some other medical condition, their immune system may not react as well as would normally be expected, meaning that they wouldn't develop a full immunity. Under those circumstances, young people living in the same household may well feel that they would want to do all they could to help protect their family members. Transmission between family members is one of the commonest causes of covid spreading. If a healt
  3. Perhaps it was a bad choice of words by me. However, when a Minister has given the wrong information to the HOK, we would expect them to come back and set the record straight. If doing so gets instant calls for their resignation, you can see why they might sometimes be reticent.
  4. There are plenty of posts on here saying that the Government should hold their hands up when they make a mistake and that what we want is transparency. It is often said that people will understand that they are only human, and admitting to their mistakes will help build public trust. I have pointed out before that whatever people say, when they do admit to a mistake there are instant calls for their resignation. They really cannot win.
  5. That is what HQ said. He said that someone had had an anaphylactic reaction after vaccination but had been treated and recovered. There was also another person who died shortly after having the vaccine, but the investigations carried out showed that there was no link between the vaccine and the patient subsequently dying.
  6. That is what they have said. It is also what the delay was at the start. Sorting out the indemnity from the UK Government.
  7. As I understand it, indemnity is being provided by the UK Government, and we are following them in regard the dosing. Furthermore, if it was the AZ vaccine we are following the manufacturer's recommendation which is second dose between 4 and 12 weeks. If it was the first dose of either, then I don't see how they could argue that because the second dose wasn't going to be given until 12 weeks, liability was voided in any way. If the post about it being an anaphylactic reaction is correct, it is unlikely to be a second dose. It would be unusual to have no reaction at all to the f
  8. The report seems to suggest that they will vary the restrictions placed upon people travelling there from the UK depending on which part of the UK they have been to. They are hoping Aurigny will switch to flying to Bristol or Exeter rather than Southampton because the Southwest has less than 30 cases per 100,000 which is there cut off for travellers having to isolate. Southeast UK is above their cut off.
  9. Perhaps it is to keep the flies off his teeth.
  10. There is some evidence of an increased risk of stroke in patients with Covid-19 due to increased risk of blood clotting generally. The good news is that the increased risk may not be as much as was first thought. Article in the Lancet abut risk in young people here Article from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation here
  11. Like the UK did with Serco for T&T, or like they did with Capita for patient records? The private sector doesn't have a good record when managing NHS services
  12. Which is why, in my reply to Gladys, I pointed out that what she was saying about the advisability, or otherwise, of charging travellers for tests was a different argument. As it happens, I personally believe that all of the tests should be done for free, largely for the reason you mention, but that isn't the situation. To a certain extent, I agree with that, and it would seem that the market can bear £50 a test. Even so, the cost of private treatment does have some sort of basis in what it actually costs to provide rather than being totally arbitrary. For instance, if a private compan
  13. I agree that the NHS should not subsidise Private care. To that end they should calculate the cost. However, it isn’t a straightforward calculation and Dr G’s calculation was simplistic to say the least. Given the relatively low numbers and the Public Health benefits, they would probably be better in my view, to just do all the tests on the NHS. Doubtless there would be critics of that, and they have taken a different route. They have estimated the cost and thereby avoided the administrative burden of calculating it. As you say, they are providing a private service, and as such, the pricing of
  14. That may well be the case, be we don't really know. The point is that calculating the actual cost from the point of the decision being taken to test someone by 111, through actually taking the test, the cost of PPE etc, the cost of processing the test in the lab, the pro-rata share of fixed costs (buildings, equipment etc), and then the administrative function of getting the results out would actually be quite complicated, and for no real benefit. It is easy to calculate a meaningless figure, but to what end?
  15. Well that is a different argument. We are talking about the tests done because people have chosen to travel and then chosen to have the tests rather than isolate for longer. You can easily argue the case that the tests should be free, in order to mitigate some of the travel difficulties brought about by the lockdown, and I would agree with that. But it isn't what the government have decided. The point I was making was that saying the tests cost the government £18.75 (as in Dr Glover's calculation) is inaccurate. If knowing the actual cost is considered important, it should be correctly ca
×
×
  • Create New...