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

The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

england.nhs.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#151

Post by neilwilson »

comicjk wrote: post #44
neilwilson wrote: post #32

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate just to hire people and set them to work in the NHS? It’s way past time the government stopped messing around and just hired all the spare labour - which can then be directed to assist the NHS or directed to stay at home as required. When there are so many people without work that want it we need to stop QE’ing Gilts and start QE’ing workers hours instead. All this could be done with a…

I agree with everything here except the reference to QE. Quantitative Easing works to control the money supply only because the central bank can quickly mop the money back up by selling the bonds it previously bought. The central bank can't mop up money it sent to people as wages, so if inflation started, they would have no leverage.

There’s no operational difference between selling old Gilts back to the market and the ability to issue new ones. Under expectations they work the same way.

Spending is automatically recovered by taxation of the flow. If the central bank spends on wages, the Treasury will end up running a surplus.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#152

Post by hjanssen »

lordlimecat wrote: post #149
hjanssen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between being abused by your employer, on which you depend with your livelihood, and being a volunteer, who can literally walk away anytime without consequences.

I fail to see how a scenario where you can walk away any time and are being paid could ever be more abusive than a scenario where you can walk away at any time and are not being paid.

Not everyone works in cushy software-engineering jobs like us. minimum wage workers most of the time do not have a choice: its either work this job or none.

I urge you to not assume your position is the standard and to see beyond your nose.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#153

Post by DanBC »

lordlimecat wrote: post #149
hjanssen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between being abused by your employer, on which you depend with your livelihood, and being a volunteer, who can literally walk away anytime without consequences.

I fail to see how a scenario where you can walk away any time and are being paid could ever be more abusive than a scenario where you can walk away at any time and are not being paid.

In the UK you can't walk away anytime unless you have a job to go to, because making yourself intentionally unemployed means you have severely limited access to benefits.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#154

Post by hjanssen »

xyzzyz wrote: post #145
jen20 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is “not making money” not a consequence, exactly?

It is a consequence, but it is a consequence of both employment and volunteering.

No, it is a consequence of not being employed which is clearly what I wrote above and why you cant compare those situations.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#155

Post by mistermann »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #131
mistermann wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t believe anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic, or anything for that matter. I don't believe I said "anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic." I propose that something very interesting is going on here, at the object level. I…

That's fair. I just didn't really see where you were coming as a reply to the original comment, where you'd written "prior outbreaks ... only variable" and the parent comment was talking about "civil society (and) social capital".

I really don't intend to be argumentative, but I'm not seeing at all what is hard to understand about my comment. Is it not generally accepted that Asian cultures tend to be more conformist and "harmonious"?

If it was about the "prior outbreaks" part, that commented was making a reference to the ~common belief that the superior outcome for Asian countries was solely the result of their past experiences with SARS, etc. In retrospect, I should have made that reference explicitly, apologies for that.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#156

Post by DanBC »

GordonS wrote: post #142
kaisix wrote: post #74

I think the initiative is laudable. We know that on a regular Friday or Saturday night, the NHS is already struggling with waiting time up to 4 hours in hospitals and low bed capacity. Mass COVID-19 infections would certainly cripple the NHS in no time. Yet, the problem is how do we ensure that those 250K volunteers do not become carriers of COVID-19 ?

up to 4 hours? I recently had the misfortune to be rushed to A&E in an ambulance on a Friday night, and waited for 6 hours. When I was finally seen by a doctor, he "mentioned" that if I'd been waiting much longer I might have lost at least some use of my hand. He also said that, at least in my neck of the woods, it's not unusual to wait up to 8 hours on a Friday/Saturday evening.

For people outside England who are wondering what the 4 hour thing is about: (all of this is before covid-19, which is having a devastating effect on A&E)

The NHS has a waiting time target in emergency departments where 95% of patients are seen, transferred or discharged in under 4 hours.

For some time that target has not been met. In many places it was down to just 85% of patients being seen, transferred or discharged within 4 hours.

A while ago we were comfortable with that because we know a bunch of people who shouldn't be at A&E turn up there, and it's safe for them to wait.

But more recently we've seen that people who should be waiting, people at risk of harm, have had to wait longer.

If you like spreadsheets there are loads here, giving details of A&E attendance across England and with details of 4 hour waits. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#157

Post by dkx »

sonicggg wrote: post #65
chrisseaton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A country in crisis calls for volunteers and you're saying 'no don't help stay home'?

I'm not the one saying it, authorities are. That's the only way to flatten the curve.

There are two parts to that diagram. The second part being the the number of patients the NHS can treat at any one time. Volunteering helps raise increase NHS capacity.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#158

Post by [deleted] »

robjan wrote: post #146
alharith wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Act of congress is a very common idiom, and widely understood by many who have similar systems of democratic government. Don't be that guy. Ah yes, forgot calling out pedantry hits too close to home with one of the world's most pedantic communities.

If you say "Act of Congress" in the UK everyone will either not know what you are talking about or assume you are referring to the USA.

[deleted]

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#159

Post by e40 »

lordlimecat wrote: post #148
e40 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to the problem in the US, where one party has been talking about how incompetent government is. For decades. And working to ensure that it is (so parts of it can be privatized). Now, look at it, when we need it.

>where one party has been talking about how incompetent government is You ever been to a DMV? Or seen someone treated at the VA? Or heard how patents are issued at the Patent Office? The government is good at some things. It's really, really bad at others, and has zero accountability most of the time.

The CA DMV is a model of efficiency. Really. Never had issues with it, in the last 2 decades. Yes, people like to complain about it, but I've been amazed how well they do what they do.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#160

Post by dvbxcmxn »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #128
Scoundreller wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nono, volunteers have better health than non-volunteers. Volunteers have enough wealth to volunteer (or, as stated, can get hooked up with better opportunities, but gotta jump over that first barrier). Lots of things you would need to (obviously) control for. Dunno if I’ll ever see a double-blinded randomized trial on volunteering though.

Do we have to keep arguing about the mental health benefits of socialising, getting out, moving about, contributing to something? The only people who are arguing "more research is needed" are social science professors and their PhD candidates. Yeah, sure, if your mental health is so poor you can't leave the house, it goes without saying those who can get out of the house do, be default, have better mental health. Tha…

> The only people who are arguing "more research is needed" are social science professors and their PhD candidates.

> Dunno if I’ll ever see a double-blinded randomized trial on volunteering though.

Social scientists generally don't do these kinds of studies. A more typical research question might be something like "what forms of volunteering do italian grandpas take part in, and what are the perceived benefits do these efforts for themselves and the communities they serve?" This would be addressed through open-ended semi-structured interviews through various sampling methods, but probably a snowball sampling strategy. The research goes in the directions that the subjects lead it in, with effort being made to tie up loose ends as part of a theory-building process. Basically a structured and evidence-based attempt to come up with a coherent explanation.

Post reply on HN