Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

I've never specified that I want a particular GP, but that usually means I'm given a choice in which case...

Our lot are very open about volunteering the info, even if you don't ask, as in "Dr xxx's next surgery isn't until Thursday would you mind seeing/speaking to Dr yyy?"

 

I've seen three others so far and they've all been excellent. Even the one who was sceptical that I'd had a small stroke (several days after the event) made sure I got a MRI scan etc. within two days. (I had, as it turned out).

 

John

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[monkeysarefun]

6 hours ago, EddieB said:

There are two ways to look at this.  On the one hand Novax Djokovic has been very naughty, and no exceptions should be countenanced - certainly not based on wealth or celebrity status.  On the other, he is reported to have had Coronavirus and most likely (one hopes) has been screened for having the antibodies conferring resistance.  He could then open a door to allow all those who can similarly prove such an immune status - after all it should be about protecting the populace rather than just adherence to compulsory vaccination.

 

Unfortunately  he refuses to give any details about his COVID status.

 

We like our rules to be very simple - unless  you fit into a very narrow medical exemption window  you must have a current vaccination history to enter the country.  One line, thats it.  Start tinkering around with "he's allowed in cos hes already  had covid" and so on and suddenly every man and his dog, even Johnny Depps  dogs Pistol and Boo would be claiming they were eligible.

 

Look at the mask rules, here its just "You must wear a mask"" and everyone does unless they want to appear on youtube as the next Bunnings Karen.  Compare with the UK - I'm not sure what the exemptions are there but going purely on what I read here they seem so broad that masks look to be  pretty much optional.

 

Now these border rules  might all seem to be irrelevant now that our Federal Government geniuses have decided to pretty much "Let it rip!" and  try to make it so we all catch it, while at the same time making it almost impossible to get a test if we think we've got it in order to ensure we spread it around as much as we are able. Probably they now are irrelevant , but while they are in place there are just two options, follow them or bu99er off!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by monkeysarefun

[andyman7]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

If only! Sherry lives a similar distance from her surgery, but no way is she allowed to walk in and talk to anyone. The doors are locked unless you have an appointment - but don't be early - and if you ring at 08.30, when the telephone system goes live, you will find you aren't even in the queue. 

 

The last time I rang my doctor's phone service here in France, at 11.45, I was in the surgery at 15.45 the same day, and it wasn't urgent. She is Spanish, I am English, it is France. It works. 

Well, there is a the problem that the NHS is treated as a religion here and any attempt to query how the model could be improved immediately leads to implications that the US approach is the only alternative. The fact that pretty much every European country manages to provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens using a variety of models (providing many ideas and opportunities to evaluate various approaches) is conveniently ignored. 

[figworthy]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

As usual, practise varies widely between surgeries, and things get pretty convoluted if the hospital or community cardiologist is involved, especially if both are in the game, because the arrangements for information sharing are antediluvian. I can take my car to any VW dealer on the planet, and they can easily access its entire history; take me to the NHS, and my history seems to live in several different, disconnected silos.

 

 

I think the key difference is that most people don't care who knows about the cars service history, but many people are concerned about where their medical history turns up, and because of that medical systems can end up disconnected.  There is also the additional problem that apparently no one has managed to come up with a unified system that is acceptable to all parties.

 

Adrian

[Nearholmer]

Frankly, I don’t care who knows when my sump oil was last changed, provided that if I blow a head gasket the mechanic can quickly check what my ECU settings are meant to be.

[lapford34102]

15 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Well, there is a the problem that the NHS is treated as a religion here and any attempt to query how the model could be improved immediately leads to implications that the US approach is the only alternative. The fact that pretty much every European country manages to provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens using a variety of models (providing many ideas and opportunities to evaluate various approaches) is conveniently ignored.

I would argue that the NHS is a religion or sacred cow is actually a bit of a myth and that most people who think about, especially now, realise  that it probably needs "modernising" for want of a better term. The idea we might be pushed toward the US model is a genuine fear with many, me included having had a recent conversation where the only solution put forward was complete privatisation of the serrvice. Various bits have been already and has caused unnecessary problems, example cited on request.

I doubt anything is being "conveniently ignored" rather on how do we go about getting a concensus on what we need to do. We have a particularly polarised political environment at the moment so no easy route there, a Royal Commision might be a first step but they don't a sparkling record.

Stu

[Nearholmer]

32 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

any attempt to query how the model could be improved immediately leads to implications that the US approach is the only alternative

As I’ve said here before, I’m convinced it needs a ‘root and branch’ review, beginning with deciding what it’s meant to achieve, but I can see why there is such fear of the US model, because all too often the calls for reform come from foxes who I wouldn’t let within ten miles of a hen coop.

[Metr0Land]

Jokeyvich visa cancelled (lawyers to appeal?)

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59889522

[4901]

Nearly 25 % of people tested in our county (in Utah USA) yesterday were breakthrough cases (already vaccinated).  What is going on?  Not wearing masks and letting the guard down?  No booster jabs?   Is this the situation in the UK? 

 

An hour ago we drove past the local testing station and there were over 80 cars queuing on the main street waiting to turn into the testing centre's car park and perhaps another 50 cars in the car park!   At least some are getting tested.
 

Stay safe everyone.  

[john new]

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

Unfortunately  he refuses to give any details about his COVID status.

 

We like our rules to be very simple - unless  you fit into a very narrow medical exemption window  you must have a current vaccination history to enter the country.  One line, thats it.  Start tinkering around with "he's allowed in cos hes already  had covid" and so on and suddenly every man and his dog, even Johnny Depps  dogs Pistol and Boo would be claiming they were eligible.

 

Look at the mask rules, here its just "You must wear a mask"" and everyone does unless they want to appear on youtube as the next Bunnings Karen.  Compare with the UK - I'm not sure what the exemptions are there but going purely on what I read here they seem so broad that masks look to be  pretty much optional.

 

Now these border rules  might all seem to be irrelevant now that our Federal Government geniuses have decided to pretty much "Let it rip!" and  try to make it so we all catch it, while at the same time making it almost impossible to get a test if we think we've got it in order to ensure we spread it around as much as we are able. Probably they now are irrelevant , but while they are in place there are just two options, follow them or bu99er off!

 

 

 

 

 

There are lots of things about your Aussie rules on imports that are to be lauded. Hope he does get kicked out to set an example that celebs should not be above the rules. Whether or not the rules are correct may well be a different issue, but celebrity status should not be a way to circumvent them.

[Nearholmer]

31 minutes ago, 4901 said:

What is going on?

Sounds like Omicron might have landed.

 

The bad news is it spreads like wildfire, with 1:15 people in England having it now, and it will infect you if you are double, or even triple jabbed.

 

The good news is that if you are double or triple jabbed, for the vast majority of people it’s mild, with maybe as many as half of those who’ve got it not even realising.

 

 

 

 

[monkeysarefun]

2 hours ago, john new said:

There are lots of things about your Aussie rules on imports that are to be lauded. Hope he does get kicked out to set an example that celebs should not be above the rules. Whether or not the rules are correct may well be a different issue, but celebrity status should not be a way to circumvent them.

 

Latest news looks like he's due on a plane going home again.  From Sydney Morning Herald:

 

World No.1 Novak Djokovic has been told his visa has been rejected and that he will be flown out of Australia later on Thursday.

Djokovic’s lawyers are in the process of challenging the decision, a source familiar with the situation confirmed to The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

 

In a classic "lets shoot ourselves in the foot" move, a Tennis Australia spokeswhinger  released this:

 

 

A Tennis Australia source claimed the move was a publicity stunt that solely targeted Djokovic and not other players who had already entered with the same exemption.

 

So they just admitted they used the dodge on others too.

 

Re the NHS. Speaking for Australia, we have  "free"  healthcare here, everyone can access the Medicare system and can choose to be treated under the public system. No one will ever be turned away or charged for their treatment through Medicare. If you are in employment you pay a proportion (I think around 3% but could be wrong) Medicare supplement, if you are on social security you pay nothing, plus most medicines are either free or heavily subsidised for you.

 

Almost all GP's use what is termed "bulk billing"  so as long as you show your Medicare Card to the receptionist the visit is free.

 

This could be said to be NHS like (other than maybe the supplement payment) , I'm not sure about the details there. 

 

 In addition though we have private medical cover, which you are encouraged (by tax rebates) to take out.

 

This gives you the benefit of hospitals and doctors of your own choice, significantly less waiting time for procedures and depending on provider, gimmicky benefits like subsidised running shoes, sun glasses, loyalty points and so on.

 

You can pick and choose what you want covered and your premium will alter to reflect that, for instance I don't need pregnancy and childbirth cover, so I don't pay for that bit.

 

Procedures are given a sum that the insurers will pay on any procedure so often there will be a "Gap" payment between their figure and the actual cost which must be covered by the patient. This is the source of much whinging but even this extra is not too unreasonable, bills for our health treatments here are nowhere near the outrageousness of say what the US have to pay. 

 

In addition you can swap between the two depending on your requirements. For instance when I had a knee operation I went private in order to skip the queue and to get the surgeon I wanted. In contrast when my son was born, we used the public system because we liked the local public hospital and would have had the same doctor there whether we went public or private,  so why pay any gap that might acrue? 

 

For "top level" cover , it costs me around  $350 a month, which using The  Economists "Big Mac index"  to compare prices worldwide is 54.25 Big Macs. Comparing that to UK pounds using the Big Mac index and the price of a UK Big Mac comes to just under 173 UK pounds.  A younger person not needing coverage for those things that afflict us in our more mature years would pay a lot less. This bit of the system  could be said to be US like, so I guess we have a bit of a hybrid system.

 

Private cover also covers dentistry, optical, physiotherapy and so on, not just the hospital stuff. 

 

Seems to work fine, the needy get free health, those who can afford to pay can choose to also access free health, and can opt to not join the private system  but will take a hit at tax time, and not have the added benefits that the private system gives them. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

It would take about a hundred accountant fortnights to explain U.K. health funding, but the bare bones:

 

- the NHS costs about £2700 per person per year to run;

 

- an amount equivalent to about 80% of that is raised through a tax called National Insurance, the rest from other taxes*;

 

- NI is mind bogglingly complicated, with multiple bands according to employment status and earnings, and rather strangely isn’t fully progressive, and a proportion of it is paid by the employee, and a proportion by their employer, but for most people in full time employment their employee contribution is 12% of salary, on most of their salary.

 

For that, we get most medical attention free at the point of use, but it isn’t that simple because many people <60yo and in full time work pay a contribution towards the cost of GP prescribed medicines (with exemptions for treatments for some severe and/or chronic illnesses), and most people pay all or part of the cost of dentistry and spectacles.

 

To make it even less clear, we also have a private medical sector, fully fee-paying, and some employees (c11%) get some degree of ‘private’ provision as a perk of their job, but it is mostly fairly limited in scope.

 

Confused? Most of us are.

 

*NI isn’t devoted wholly to funding the NHS, which is actually funded from ‘pot mix’ of tax sources, but it’s a useful proxy for thinking about cost and revenue.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Nearholmer

[monkeysarefun]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Confused? Most of us are.

Maybe its because we are a simpler folk down here, or just have a lower bullcr@p tolerance, which seems to make things more basic here.

 

For instance I just looked up the mask regulations on the NSW government website, and then the UK government  one. Here is what you get when you google ours:

 

Masks

All people over the age of 12 must wear a face mask: 

in indoor areas (e.g. while shopping, when at a library) 

in indoor areas of common property of apartment buildings 

at a public transport waiting area  

while on public transport (including in taxis and rideshare services) 

if you are working at a hospitality venue and dealing directly with members of the public 

on an aircraft when the aircraft is flying above NSW and in the airport.

 

There was a link that gave things in a bit more depth and covered exemptions (which require a Medical Certificate or a Statutary Declaration)   but basically that list is all you need.

 

Then I googled mask rules for the UK and got this on the UK government website .

 

In England, you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (examples are given in brackets):

shops and supermarkets (places which offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)

auction houses

post offices, banks, building societies, high street solicitors and accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses

estate and letting agents

premises providing personal care and beauty treatments (barbers, hair salons, tattoo and piercing studios, nail salons and massage centres)

pharmacies

premises providing veterinary services

retail galleries

retail travel agents

public facing funeral offices

takeaways without space for consumption of food or drink on premises

shopping centres (malls and indoor markets)

community centres (including village halls), youth centres, members clubs and social clubs

libraries and public reading rooms

polling stations and premises used for the counting of votes

places of worship

crematoria and burial ground chapels

visitor attractions and entertainment venues (museums, galleries, cinemas, indoor theatres, concert halls, cultural and heritage sites, indoor areas at aquariums, zoos and visitor farms, bingo halls, amusement arcades, adventure activity centres, indoor sports stadiums, funfairs, indoor theme parks, casinos, skating rinks, bowling alleys, indoor play areas including soft-play areas)

public areas in hotels and hostels

indoor areas of open-air sports stadiums

public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams, buses, coaches and ferries), taxis and private hire vehicles

cars or small vans during any professionally delivered driving lesson, during any driving test, and during any practical test to qualify as an approved driving instructor

heavy goods vehicle (HGVs) during any driving lesson and during any driving test

driving theory test centres

transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)

motorway service areas

Staff within these settings, except some transport workers (see the ‘Face coverings at work’ section below), and those working in premises providing legal or financial services are required to wear face coverings when they are in a part that is open to the public and when they are likely to come into close contact with members of the public, such as on a shop floor. Staff may also wear face coverings when working in settings where face coverings are not required, and businesses are encouraged to support them in doing so.

You are required to wear a face covering on entering any of these settings and must keep it on until you leave unless you are exempt or have a reasonable excuse for removing it. Examples of what would usually be a reasonable excuse are listed in the ‘If you are not able to wear a face covering’ section below.

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places, especially those that are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

Face coverings are not legally required in hospitality settings given that they cannot be worn while eating and drinking. They are also not legally required in exercise facilities including gyms, dance studios, swimming pools or leisure centres (see the ‘When you do not need to wear a face covering’ section below).

Face coverings and face masks are needed in healthcare settings to comply with infection, prevention, control (IPC) guidance. This includes hospitals and primary or community care settings, such as GP surgeries. They should also be worn by everyone accessing or visiting care homes.

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

2 hours ago, andyman7 said:

The fact that pretty much every European country manages to provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens using a variety of models (providing many ideas and opportunities to evaluate various approaches) is conveniently ignored. 

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

My limited experience is rather different.

Germany has an insurance system largely based around the industry/business that you work in.  Although everyone is free to chose another Kasse (insurance group), I never met anyone who had.  There is a fall back for those whose business is not affiliated but is not always taken up since such people re generally on low wages.  The general affluence in Germany probably hides that it is not quite universal.

 

France has universal coverage to 70% of the costs/charges.  Some things are a bit less than that and long term illnesses are likely to be covered by 100% but by and large 70% covers it.  The remaining 30% can be covered through a mutuelle or business health  club (for want of a better description - a bit like the old 1d health clubs for miners and the like pre-NHS) or through private insurance.  There is no obligation for anyone to cover the 30% and quite a few do not since it can be really quite expensive.  Again general high levels of affluence hide the fact that healthcare is not 100% universal.  I have seen however elderly people with a prescription with several items refuse an item at the chemist because the cost is too much for them.    Private insurance can be quite expensive and will not necessarily cover all of the costs - dental and optical work being areas that are particularly poorly covered by the "state" system and insurance.  

 

So what I am saying is that what you see as universal care may not be anything like as universal as the NHS is when you get to know the details.

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Maybe its because we are a simpler folk down here, or just have a lower bullcr@p tolerance, which seems to make things more basic here.

Think of it more as the difference between a 500 year old oak-beamed thatched cottage that has been extended and altered multiple times, and a 50 year old corrugated iron general store. Our taxation and bureaucratic systems have charm, and character.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nearholmer

[monkeysarefun]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Think of it more as the difference between a 500 year old oak-beamed thatched cottage that has been extended and altered multiple times, and a 50 year old corrugated iron general store. Our taxation systems have character.

 

 

Or the "Public Toilet" comparison perhaps.

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Maybe its because we are a simpler folk down here, or just have a lower bullcr@p tolerance, which seems to make things more basic here.

 

For instance I just looked up the mask regulations on the NSW government website, and then the UK government  one. Here is what you get when you google ours:

 

Masks

All people over the age of 12 must wear a face mask: 

in indoor areas (e.g. while shopping, when at a library) 

in indoor areas of common property of apartment buildings 

at a public transport waiting area  

while on public transport (including in taxis and rideshare services) 

if you are working at a hospitality venue and dealing directly with members of the public 

on an aircraft when the aircraft is flying above NSW and in the airport.

 

There was a link that gave things in a bit more depth and covered exemptions (which require a Medical Certificate or a Statutary Declaration)   but basically that list is all you need.

 

Then I googled mask rules for the UK and got this on the UK government website .

 

In England, you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (examples are given in brackets):

shops and supermarkets (places which offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)

auction houses

post offices, banks, building societies, high street solicitors and accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses

estate and letting agents

premises providing personal care and beauty treatments (barbers, hair salons, tattoo and piercing studios, nail salons and massage centres)

pharmacies

premises providing veterinary services

retail galleries

retail travel agents

public facing funeral offices

takeaways without space for consumption of food or drink on premises

shopping centres (malls and indoor markets)

community centres (including village halls), youth centres, members clubs and social clubs

libraries and public reading rooms

polling stations and premises used for the counting of votes

places of worship

crematoria and burial ground chapels

visitor attractions and entertainment venues (museums, galleries, cinemas, indoor theatres, concert halls, cultural and heritage sites, indoor areas at aquariums, zoos and visitor farms, bingo halls, amusement arcades, adventure activity centres, indoor sports stadiums, funfairs, indoor theme parks, casinos, skating rinks, bowling alleys, indoor play areas including soft-play areas)

public areas in hotels and hostels

indoor areas of open-air sports stadiums

public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams, buses, coaches and ferries), taxis and private hire vehicles

cars or small vans during any professionally delivered driving lesson, during any driving test, and during any practical test to qualify as an approved driving instructor

heavy goods vehicle (HGVs) during any driving lesson and during any driving test

driving theory test centres

transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)

motorway service areas

Staff within these settings, except some transport workers (see the ‘Face coverings at work’ section below), and those working in premises providing legal or financial services are required to wear face coverings when they are in a part that is open to the public and when they are likely to come into close contact with members of the public, such as on a shop floor. Staff may also wear face coverings when working in settings where face coverings are not required, and businesses are encouraged to support them in doing so.

You are required to wear a face covering on entering any of these settings and must keep it on until you leave unless you are exempt or have a reasonable excuse for removing it. Examples of what would usually be a reasonable excuse are listed in the ‘If you are not able to wear a face covering’ section below.

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places, especially those that are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

Face coverings are not legally required in hospitality settings given that they cannot be worn while eating and drinking. They are also not legally required in exercise facilities including gyms, dance studios, swimming pools or leisure centres (see the ‘When you do not need to wear a face covering’ section below).

Face coverings and face masks are needed in healthcare settings to comply with infection, prevention, control (IPC) guidance. This includes hospitals and primary or community care settings, such as GP surgeries. They should also be worn by everyone accessing or visiting care homes.

 

 

"All public indoor and enclosed settings, excepting  (contents of the penultimate paragraph in the above post) and when being orally examined or treated by a health professional." Would have been wholly adequate and fewer people would have lost the will to live by paragraph four. However, I'd make it "while seated as a customer in hospitality settings"

 

Even if everybody read that every morning nobody is going to remember even half of it. and most of us will get it wrong at least once a week.

 

It's another case of the real "British Disease"; politicians micro-managing and civil servants being obsessed with superfluous detail. Before we left the EU, a standard or directive would come out of Brussels on a few sheets of A4 paper but, by the time Whitehall had done their bit, it would be the size of a phone book. It's clearly got no better since Brexit.

 

Keeps them all fully employed, I suppose, but there's zero benefit to anybody else outside those members of the legal profession who make financial whoopee from finding and exploiting loopholes.

 

John

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Dunsignalling
Highlighting

[burgundy]

7 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

My limited experience is rather different.

Germany has an insurance system largely based around the industry/business that you work in.  Although everyone is free to chose another Kasse (insurance group), I never met anyone who had.  There is a fall back for those whose business is not affiliated but is not always taken up since such people re generally on low wages.  The general affluence in Germany probably hides that it is not quite universal.

 

France has universal coverage to 70% of the costs/charges.  Some things are a bit less than that and long term illnesses are likely to be covered by 100% but by and large 70% covers it.  The remaining 30% can be covered through a mutuelle or business health  club (for want of a better description - a bit like the old 1d health clubs for miners and the like pre-NHS) or through private insurance.  There is no obligation for anyone to cover the 30% and quite a few do not since it can be really quite expensive.  Again general high levels of affluence hide the fact that healthcare is not 100% universal.  I have seen however elderly people with a prescription with several items refuse an item at the chemist because the cost is too much for them.    Private insurance can be quite expensive and will not necessarily cover all of the costs - dental and optical work being areas that are particularly poorly covered by the "state" system and insurance.  

 

So what I am saying is that what you see as universal care may not be anything like as universal as the NHS is when you get to know the details.

Having had some exposure to the German and the US systems, the mystery to me is why any discussion about reforming the NHS always references the US. Almost any revised system is going to cost us a lot more than we pay at present, but the US arrangement seems to be grossly inefficient in so many ways - fragmentation, playing shops and quality care only for those who can afford it. 

However, I appreciate that the present UK Government is unlikely to look to mainland Europe for an effective healthcare model. 

Best wishes 

Eric

[Nearholmer]

U.K. total health spend per capita per annum (so NHS and all the other bits) = c£3300

 

The equivalent figure for the US is = c£7700

 

How much of that difference is due to a difference in quality, and how much due to all the foxes dining out at the chicken coop, I don’t know, but it seems hard to believe that if Mr Average American and Mrs Average Britisher both suffer exactly the same illness, the former gets treatment more than twice as effective as the latter.

 

It gets mentioned every time because foxes are licking their lips, and chickens shivering in fear at the prospect.

 

One less threatening way of starting a review would be to ask the question how could the effectiveness of health care be improved while spending exactly the same on it as now? Try to make it better, not cheaper.

 

I reckon a lot could be done on that basis, but that would miss the other half of the equation that has to be looked at along with it: social care. My gut feeling is that we aren’t spending anything like enough on that, that we are buying largely the wrong things with the money that we do spend, and that the balkanised way of providing it makes it inefficient, as well as ineffective, and exploitative of the staff working in it. But, I could be wrong.

 

Provocative thought for consideration: the age-band of the population that needs most social care is the age band that holds most static wealth in the form of houses and pension investments.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Crisis Rail]

9 hours ago, john new said:

There are lots of things about your Aussie rules on imports that are to be lauded. Hope he does get kicked out to set an example that celebs should not be above the rules. Whether or not the rules are correct may well be a different issue, but celebrity status should not be a way to circumvent them.

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

[Dunsignalling]

7 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

I had a mate who was considerably fitter than you or me. Heart attack at 37 and dead before he hit the ground.

 

Athletes are routinely tested for all manner of performance-affecting stuff and I think these vaccines have been given to so many people that, by now, any notion of them being an "unknown" is total bollox.

 

The crucial aspect regarding ND (AIUI and unless he's changed his mind) is that he's also declined to have an antibody test or reveal the results of any he might have taken privately. How's that different from refusing a doping test?

 

John

Edited January 6, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

9 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

Fine for him to keep publicly schtum. Equally fine for him to be excluded if he doesn’t meet reasonable conditions for entry. He’s a man, not a god.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Nearholmer

[andyman7]

8 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

My limited experience is rather different.

Germany has an insurance system largely based around the industry/business that you work in.  Although everyone is free to chose another Kasse (insurance group), I never met anyone who had.  There is a fall back for those whose business is not affiliated but is not always taken up since such people re generally on low wages.  The general affluence in Germany probably hides that it is not quite universal.

 

France has universal coverage to 70% of the costs/charges.  Some things are a bit less than that and long term illnesses are likely to be covered by 100% but by and large 70% covers it.  The remaining 30% can be covered through a mutuelle or business health  club (for want of a better description - a bit like the old 1d health clubs for miners and the like pre-NHS) or through private insurance.  There is no obligation for anyone to cover the 30% and quite a few do not since it can be really quite expensive.  Again general high levels of affluence hide the fact that healthcare is not 100% universal.  I have seen however elderly people with a prescription with several items refuse an item at the chemist because the cost is too much for them.    Private insurance can be quite expensive and will not necessarily cover all of the costs - dental and optical work being areas that are particularly poorly covered by the "state" system and insurance.  

 

So what I am saying is that what you see as universal care may not be anything like as universal as the NHS is when you get to know the details.

 

To be clear, I am not one of those citing UK = bad; Everywhere else = better. But neither do I fall into the trap of UK = best; Ignore the rest.

 

We have fallen into a fallacy about free universal healthcare in this country. Access to GPs, routine appointments, non urgent operations etc may be free, but the gatekeepers and shortages to accessing them mean that too many people do not access the healthcare they need, or end up paying privately for knee operations etc because the wait is too long.

 

The only accurate way to measure inputs and outputs is to look across the piece and identify both the healthcare spending per capita/in relation to GDP etc; and to measure outcomes, e.g. cancer death rates, life expectancy, other health measures. These show that the UK performs well against some but really quite badly against others.

 

In the UK, Dental and Optical care is not free, it is means-tested, and the fact that any non-urgent service that the NHS currently offers is effectively rationed is also, I would suggest, not 'universal' either. Most would agree it needs further investment; but what money, where, and to what effect is the real question - no one wins if billions go in and no material benefit comes out.

[Hobby]

11 hours ago, lapford34102 said:

I would argue that the NHS is a religion or sacred cow is actually a bit of a myth and that most people who think about, especially now, realise  that it probably needs "modernising" for want of a better term. The idea we might be pushed toward the US model is a genuine fear with many, me included having had a recent conversation where the only solution put forward was complete privatisation of the serrvice. Various bits have been already and has caused unnecessary problems, example cited on request.

I doubt anything is being "conveniently ignored" rather on how do we go about getting a concensus on what we need to do. We have a particularly polarised political environment at the moment so no easy route there, a Royal Commision might be a first step but they don't a sparkling record.

Stu

 

And therein lies the problem, people openly admit there's a problem, but express their concerns about any possible review even before it's started by trying to place restrictions on it. 

 

I particularly like "We have a particularly polarised political environment at the moment"!! Please tell me when it hasn't been!!! 

 

No review will ever happen whilst this persists.  It is still a sacred cow, you only have to look at the newspapers around any election time to see such headlines as "It's safe in our hands" or "It's not safe in their hands" (substitute political party of your choice) and the sooner people admit that the better instead of burying their heads in the sand. Perhaps then we can move on and do something constructive as andyman7 correctly says.

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Hobby