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

England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 452 posts

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#421

Post by waweic »

ericd wrote: post #413
laurencerowe wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Annual exams were included in the ACA but as I understand it there is no evidence to show that they improve health outcomes. I had one once in 15 years when it was incentivised by my employer (presumably trying to show that we were low risk to reduce the rates they paid?) but otherwise my doctor has never tried to book me for one. I think I'd prefer the UK system where if you worry something is wrong you can see a do…

Anecdotally, I've found yearly physicals with full blood workup very helpful in heading off issues before they become much larger issues. For example, a random blood marker pointed at mold exposure. I thought that was strange, I didn't think we had any mold. Then I tore open one of my ceilings, there was a very slow leak in the bathroom above the top of that drywall was covered in mold. I replaced all of that drywall…

Do you happen to recall, which blood marker this was? In my living situation, mold might be an issue, but it seems to be hard to actually test for it.

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#423

Post by rkangel »

tjohns wrote: post #331
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to pile into the - this is not true. But it's not true. We get regular bowel cancer screening - you get it every 2 years once you hit 50 - https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/bowel-cancer-screeni... And there are also regular health checks available once you hit 40 - https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/nhs-health-check/

From a US perspective, even this seems wild to me. I've always been told that at least an annual physical exam with bloodwork is highly recommended as the standard of care for adults of all ages. Not everyone chooses to get them, of course. But ACA insurance plans here offer at least one annual physical exam free of charge (considered preventative care).

Cynically - this sounds like an opportunity to sell you more medical care.

The NHS isn't perfect, but one of the things it does well because of it's structure is minimise costs holistically. It's cheaper to treat conditions early, so usually implements appropriate screening to catch things. If they don't do regular checkups like this it's because they're of minimal value.

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#424

Post by rkangel »

floam wrote: post #414
andsoitis wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the UK once you've had your childhood vaccinations it's entirely possible you'd simply never see a doctor again in your life until you're ready for your prostate exam in older life. It is not customary in the UK to see a doctor at regular intervals for checkups?

How.. do people find out they’re diabetic before organs are borderline failing?

There are actually periodic tests for people over 40 in the UK. The GP comment is wrong.

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#425

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

shevy-java wrote: post #43
alibarber wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it's health related and each of the countries in the UK have their own National Health Services (or Health and Social Care in NI). It's not a lapse here.

I kind of assumed that they actually meant UK. It's indeed confusing. I'd wish the BBC would use a consistent naming scheme. Guess only England was meant. That would insinuate they don't care about scotland though.

"England" is meant because that's the scope of the health service "NHS England" (1)

> That would insinuate they don't care about Scotland though.

You forgot the other states of the United Kingdom: Wales and Northern Ireland. But I disagree, it says nothing at all about Scotland - this seems like the "I like pancakes!" "So you hate waffles?" faulty reasoning. (2)

If you disagree, why don't you care about Wales? /s

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_England https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/

2) https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/no-bitch-dats-a-whole-new-x-w...

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#426

Post by nephihaha »

arethuza wrote: post #419
nephihaha wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relaxed is not the word at all. Northern Ireland is a powderkeg and the UK government has known that for decades. The Scottish referendum did not use neutral international observers, and had extremely biased coverage by state media. The BBC itself even tried to stir up forms of violent unionism. (Look up the so called "passionate Highlander", a drunken loyalist type who talked about defending the union to the death "…

Well, I'm an independence supporting Scot and I don't have any concerns about the actual running of the referendum - I do agree that the BBC coverage was biased but I think that is largely because they are "conservative" (note the small C) in the sense of having a bias towards preserving the status-quo. This was pretty clear from the Brexit referendum where I thought they favoured the status-quo there and, as a Remai…

The BBC is institutionally biased because they stand to lose 10% of their licence fee. I have heard they received some EU funding, but from their POV they probably made some money from exporting programming within the common market. I voted Remain myself although I do have some misgivings about the EU. (I recently debated an American online who thought the BBC's current panic about licence fees was to do with USAID. Not even close. Although British TV has been swamped with US imports.)

"The 45" has a resonance in Scottish history and it is a bit of a coincidence the Yes vote was stuck at that rather than 47 or 44.

Having neutral international observers was a no brainer, but the SNP often seems to trust the system they're trying to break up much more than it should.

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#428

Post by rob_c »

noir_lord wrote: post #19
renegade-otter wrote: post #6

Good for you. We get explosive diarrhea as the prize in the States. Wanna trade?

Nah we are good - We have our problems (including our own version of your guy but he hasn't won yet and is currently running against a man with a bin on his head) but on the whole, nah we are good.

And that same problem leading to him is the same reason why we have 3rd world diseases coming back...

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#429

Post by rob_c »

gertop wrote: post #287
shevy-java wrote: post #36

The title shows a lack of understanding. BBC has become really low quality.

There is a lack of understanding, but it's coming from you not the BBC. There is a difference between elimination and eradication. As usual you fail to understand nuance.

There's also a difference between treatment and cure but we call it all a "vaccine" now (I prefer the transitional OED definition from pre 2019). We've already entered 1984s use of good speak especially around healthcare.

Re: England set to be one of the first countries to eliminate hepatitis C

#430

Post by gadders »

hgoel wrote: post #395
phillc73 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why the parent was downvoted, because I think it nails the current sentiment. For some people the COVID vaccine(s) were rushed to market, with limited clinical trials, intended to vaccinate the entire adult population, with limited data as to their immediate effectiveness and with no data about long term effects. You can debate whether the above points are valid or not, but for some people they certainly rai…

My belief is that for most of those people, no amount of evidence would have ever been enough. The entire "I looked at the data and found it insufficient" thing is by and large cover for people that lack the tools to evaluate the data. They play that card so they can pretend that they're actually intelligent skeptical adults and not easily manipulated idiots or malicious grifters. They're the equivalent of a random p…

"It was developed in the last 6 months" and "It was developed 50 years ago and millions of people around the world have used it with no ill effects" doesn't really require a degree in biochemistry to evaluate the possible risks.
Post reply on HN