Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 461 posts

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#231

Post by dia80 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #228
oliwarner wrote: post #116

This isn't a collapse of emergency healthcare, it's a very predicted collapse of community social care: hospitals can't discharge if they need a care home place that doesn't exist. Without inpatient bed availability, ERs and AMUs can't admit to specialties and everything gums up at the front door. Let's be clear: we do need many more doctors and nurses, but the existing ones can't do their jobs because their wards ha…

> This isn't a collapse of emergency healthcare, it's a very predicted collapse of community social care: hospitals can't discharge if they need a care home place that doesn't exist. Without inpatient bed availability, ERs and AMUs can't admit to specialties and everything gums up at the front door. How does that manifest as ambulance wait times? Do you think ambulance drivers are sitting around for an hour before re…

Yes, The ambulances are waiting outside the hospitals with the last patient so they can't go to get the next one. Source: Family members have recently waited some hours outside A&E in an ambulance.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#232

Post by Jtsummers »

dekhn wrote: post #188
adolph wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you can't wait 12 hours you become excess mortality. Sometime before the 12 hour period, one must make a choice whether to seek care or not.

the 12 hour wait is once the person enters the doors of the facility. In a hospital, if you walk into the ER, people are observing you closely and expediting people at immediate risk of death. A person who can sit in a chair for 12 hours waiting didn't have an emergency. Instead, they were using the ER for non-urgent care.

> A person who can sit in a chair for 12 hours waiting didn't have an emergency. Instead, they were using the ER for non-urgent care.

Or the ER was crap. Like the time I waited 12 hours (because I had no choice, I needed a surgeon) to have my foot put back together.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#233

Post by robotnikman »

vfclists wrote: post #119
nindalf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blogs don’t make sense for the most prolific creators. Here’s something I saw recently > I gave up blogging after decades because the ROI simply wasn’t there any more. Why spend hours on a post that will get hundreds of views when a tweet composed in minutes gets tens of thousands to millions? https://twitter.com/carnage4life/status/1559852146601799683 And it’s the same with Scott Hanselman, who’s quoted in that twee…

If you are serious about communicating then you MUST blog in addition to tweet. Twitter is for soundbites, not lengthy articles. You can't expect people to read tweet after tweet when they would rather read a long continuous article. The dude probably has the software that breaks down lengthy articles and tweets them in reverse order but that shouldn't be abused. And what happens when you fall foul of twitter's rules…

Not sure why you were downvoted, as those are valid points. Twitter is the best medium when it comes to talking about subjects in depth. It is good when it comes to making a quick hot take, but not in depth articles or explanations.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't engage much in long form discussion as much as they would a tweet. Tweets are much easier to discover, find, and view compared to a blog post. It's much easier to click like on a tweet or retweet something, and bigger engagement numbers == better. So people instead will write out tweets instead of blog posts. I don't care for it much myself, but such is the modern internet I guess.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#234

Post by mattlondon »

As a UK tax payer, and as a UK tax payer that winces every time they see how much they lose to taxation in their P60 each year (six figures in tax), what are people's solutions to this?

It seems like the NHS budget keeps on going up and up and up [1], as does the number of doctors and nurses (while "managers" has either declined or stayed relatively static) [2]. So NHS is getting more funding, and there are more doctors and nurses. Yet there is still outcry about how we need MOAR MOAR MOAR!

We're spending ~10% of GDP on the NHS at the moment [3] - how much more do people want? 10% appears to be roughly comparable to other developed nations (except USA...) and the data says that nurses and doctors are increasing in numbers while "managers" are not, so the usual cries about the money being spent on "management consultants" appears to be ill-founded, as does the complaints that it is the Tory party reducing funding.

Throwing money at the problem appears not to be working because the budget keeps going up, the numbers of doctors and nurses keeps going up, yet people are still complaining about it being awful? What gives? What is the solution when just spending more money isn't working?

1 - https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-w...

2 - https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-n...

3- https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-n...

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#235

Post by Apocryphon »

dkarl wrote: post #158
pjc50 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although, you'll have to explain which economic elites in the UK decided that Brexit would be to their advantage The press. For a time, Johnson himself was both a minister and a "journalist" for the Times. He was paid more for writing one article a week than for being a minister. Eventually he was forced to give this up. But Brexit is to a great extent a media project, backed by sensational but misleading claims, a…

If that's the best answer, I think it tends to show that money didn't buy Brexit. The media doesn't care what circus they're covering, as long as there are plenty of clowns and dancing bears. The people who had the money and motivation to buy public opinion on the issue lost out, and it all happened because some politicians found a message that resonated with voters and kept on it as long as it kept working.

Sounds like an explanation Adam Curtis would approve of. I wonder if he's made a film that's explored this in full yet? I know he's certainly mentioned Brexit.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#236

Post by MichaelCollins »

dia80 wrote: post #231
MichaelCollins wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a collapse of emergency healthcare, it's a very predicted collapse of community social care: hospitals can't discharge if they need a care home place that doesn't exist. Without inpatient bed availability, ERs and AMUs can't admit to specialties and everything gums up at the front door. How does that manifest as ambulance wait times? Do you think ambulance drivers are sitting around for an hour before re…

Yes, The ambulances are waiting outside the hospitals with the last patient so they can't go to get the next one. Source: Family members have recently waited some hours outside A&E in an ambulance.

This is hard to believe. Just wheel the patient through the front door and let the hospital do the babysitting. There is no sense in using an ambulance as a waiting room.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#237

Post by LorenPechtel »

dekhn wrote: post #188
adolph wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you can't wait 12 hours you become excess mortality. Sometime before the 12 hour period, one must make a choice whether to seek care or not.

the 12 hour wait is once the person enters the doors of the facility. In a hospital, if you walk into the ER, people are observing you closely and expediting people at immediate risk of death. A person who can sit in a chair for 12 hours waiting didn't have an emergency. Instead, they were using the ER for non-urgent care.

A few years back the doctor sent me over to the ER. Had I gone home instead there would have been zero (above background average) risk of dying in the next 12 hours. That doesn't say the doc was wrong in sending me there--I had a kidney stone, the risk was kidney damage and infection, not dropping dead.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#238

Post by bambataa »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #198

I don't think it is coincidental that there is also now a large push in England for State sanctioned suicide. Especially after reading how administrators in Canada are treating it.

What are you talking about?

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#239

Post by isk517 »

WalterBright wrote: post #194
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said.

The game in socialism is also making a lot of money.

The game of any ecological/political system is to acquire power, the exact system is merely the set of rules you play by to get it.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#240

Post by LorenPechtel »

WithinReason wrote: post #49
armada651 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They subtract COVID deaths from excess deaths to get the baseline, forgetting that COVID deaths were counted somewhat liberally, and some percentage of non-COVID deaths were counted as COVID deaths if someone was infected close to their time of death. If COVID deaths were counted liberaly and even after subtracting those inflated numbers you still have excess deaths, then that only further underlines their point th…

No, they say that current non-COVID excess deaths are higher than non-COVID excess deaths were during COVID . They underestimate non-COVID excess deaths during COVID because of the subtraction, which makes current excess deaths higher than average. In reality, they underestimated the average that they compare to. Hope it's clear now.

However, Covid preys heavily on the already sick. We should see a *reduction* in deaths because Covid killed off a lot of people that didn't have a lot of time left. We don't even have an accurate baseline to compare to at this point.
Post reply on HN