- Re: Nothing stopping it being posted here. You appear to be objecting to my critiquing it. Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on May 10, 2020, 6:41 am, in reply to "Re: Nothing stopping it being posted here. You appear to be objecting to my critiquing it."
|
Dan also made the point that lockdown without testing (to prevent many emergency cases reaching hospitals where the chances of mortality have increased) isn't a good approach. We discussed 111 calls, prevailing triage that tells people to stay at home without sats checks etc seems to lead in the opposite direction to prevention of deaths. Lockdown (were it across the board and total) might have stopped the spread, but those who were in the process of getting ill were not looked after adequately because of the nature of the lockdown (a cessation of primary care with the focus on hospital beds for the (often terminally) ill. For many this suggests worse than casual neglect, and points at ulterior motive. So I'm thinking (and haven't read any of these articles) that saying stayed by at home has made more people ill isn't unsubstantiated, but more pointing out the massive holes in the management of the virus. While everyone's been out clapping the nhs theyve all been going back indoors knowing that the only way ATM they would get to benefit from the services is if they're sick enough to qualify for an ambulance ride. That's not good enough. It puts the actual hospital staff under enormous pressure, exposes them all to concentrated pockets of covid, because all the prior triage steps got effectively taken out the mix. Dealing with late stages of pneumonia vs early is going to be a lot more difficult to get a positive result. My guess is the flip flop by Johnson on no lockdown v lockdown was opportunity presenting itself. The method to me indicates that motive was not to prevent tragedy but to use it. If beeley said what was mentioned above it fits with what me and Dan and others were discussing last week. Cheers |