Nightingale Hospital has turned away more patients than it has treated

[Notch7]

people on here allude to our healthcare system being among the worst in Europe

it simple fact -the NHS has the lowest per capita funding against most EU countries.

it seems a little strange that the NHS has coped remarkably well with capacity to spare

its possible to keep capacity when 50% of patients arent admitted.

it seems a little strange that the NHS has coped remarkably well with capacity to spare, to the point the nightingale facilities weren't required, when the healthcare systems of Spain and Italy were at the point of collapse. Why?

Its a good point, I dont know how we can make a judgement on why (we dont know how many patients they admitted), maybe Spain, Italy and New York were hot spots where the hospitals couldnt cope -that is what was reported, we saw the pictures, not the overall stats.

 

[Mottie]

Like I said, the Nightingale not being needed has been a big upset for a few members on here.

 

[Notch7]

Like I said, the Nightingale not being needed has been a big upset for a few members on here.

no it hasnt.

Nightingale hospitals were a bit of flagship propaganda for the govt.

and they werent needed as Covid patients werent admitted to hospital but allowed to die in care homes and in the community.

 

[JohnD]

...... Nightingale not being needed....

It's interesting that you want to spread that message. What will be the benefits of saying it?

 

[Mottie]

no it hasnt.

Yes it has.

 

[Mottie]

It's interesting that you want to spread that message. What will be the benefits of saying it?

Yeah, what’s the point in spreading good news? You should try it one day - you might like it.

 

[securespark]

Don't you consider that it was an extremely poor use of funds to spend that amount of money on a building that could not be fully utilised?

Would it have been better to use it to bolster the pathetic levels and quality of equipment the NHS staff were expected to use (or not use), like the aprons only fit for a dinner lady?

Was it a bit of a statement by Johnson that the hospital was completed in the same time as another one elsewhere in the world?

I would say "too little, too late", but this is more like "too much, too late."

When the Gov realised they were woefully prepared for an emergency response like this in '16, what did they do?
Did they a) double down their efforts and investments in the areas that were sorely lacking, or did they do SFA, stuff it under the carpet and hope that that day never arrived?
Head in the sand and p!ss up in a brewery are some of the words that spring to mind.

 

[Notch7]

Yes it has.

in your opinion

which is wrong

 

[SirGalahad]

Given that the UK is rapidly approaching having the highest infection rates and fatalities in Europe, and given that people on here allude to our healthcare system being among the worst in Europe, it seems a little strange that the NHS has coped remarkably well with capacity to spare, to the point the nightingale facilities weren't required, when the healthcare systems of Spain and Italy were at the point of collapse. Why?

The infection in Italy was concentrated in the Lombardy region with other regions way less infected. The system was under stress the most in Lombardy. They scaled back elective treatments and created hubs that would deal with specific clinics - oncology treatment, orthopaedic etc which would continue only in the hub hospitals. The NHS simply stopped everything as it was the only way to deal with a more widespread infection.

The fact now the North East has now more infected per head of population confirms this.

 

[SirGalahad]

Don't you consider that it was an extremely poor use of funds to spend that amount of money on a building that could not be fully utilised?

Would it have been better to use it to bolster the pathetic levels and quality of equipment the NHS staff were expected to use (or not use), like the aprons only fit for a dinner lady?

Was it a bit of a statement by Johnson that the hospital was completed in the same time as another one elsewhere in the world?

I would say "too little, too late", but this is more like "too much, too late."

When the Gov realised they were woefully prepared for an emergency response like this in '16, what did they do?
Did they a) double down their efforts and investments in the areas that were sorely lacking, or did they do SFA, stuff it under the carpet and hope that that day never arrived?
Head in the sand and p!ss up in a brewery are some of the words that spring to mind.

The Nighingales MO was to only treat those people who were strong enough to recover and would recover anway - as it would be staffed by a skeleton staff of specialists with the rest made up from other NHS staff repurposed - ie audiologists to help out! Also there would be 42 patients for each IC Consultant -which highlights how these IC consultants are in short order but also that the patients targeted for the Nightinales are not the ones that are the most risk.

 

[Notch7]

Yeah, what’s the point in spreading good news?

what good news?

the government puts some beds in an exhibition hall, sticks a sign out the front and says it was built in 9 days (clearly a lie).
Its just another piece of govt propaganda -they had hardly any staff to man it, nor does it include any specialist equipment for ICU patients, so it was only ever a holding bay.
Yes it was great they built it, and it was clearly better than the warehouse in Spain, but lets not pretend the primary reason it was built -govt propaganda.

Great:
the UK built a field hospital quickly, so govt put its energy into something for show, when they shouldve been responding to all those businesses offering PPE equipment.

 

[Mottie]

in your opinion

which is wrong

Stop banging on about it then.

 

[ajohn]

Germany is short of 17,000 nurses due to their health service not being maintained well enough. Loads of crap about Nightingales as they were built for if things got more out of hand than they did. They may still do just that. I posted why they have reacted as they did in the big numbers thread - overload the NHS and death numbers rocket and they have to start introducing rather strong rules about who gets treated and who doesn't.

Singapore
Total population (2016) 5,622,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 76,850
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 81/85
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 3
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 65/38
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 4,047
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 4.9

France
Total population (2016) 64,721,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 37,580
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 80/86
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 94/48
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 4,508
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 11.5

UK
Total population (2016) 65,789,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 35,760
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 80/83
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 81/52
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 3,377
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 9.1

Sweden
Total population (2016) 9,838,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 44,760
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 81/84
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 3
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 64/40
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 5,219
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014)11.9

Germany
Total population (2016) 81,915,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 44,540
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 79/83
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 88/49
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 5,182
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014)11.3

Italy
Total population (2016) 59,430,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 34,100
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 80/85
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 3
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 68/39
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 3,239
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 9.2

Switzerland
Total population (2016) 8,402,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 56,580
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 81/85
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 62/36
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 6,468
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 11.7

Austria
Total population (2016) 8,712,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $, 2013) 43,840
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2016) 79/84
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births, 2018) 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population, 2016) 80/44
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) 5,039
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2014) 11.2

The expenditure per capita rules out variations in how cost is handled as it varies.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

mottie is being silly again.

I wonder where the extra staff will come from to run these empty hospitals. The existing ones are short of staff and equipment. Perhaps the "50,000 extra nurses" can do it.

Ooops, my mistake. They don't exist.

Having 500,000 fewer immigrants would be a boost to the NHS.

 

[JohnD]

Having 500,000 fewer immigrants would be a boost to the NHS.

It would be more accurate to say, having 500,000 fewer old Brits would be a boost to the NHS. What would you do with them?

The NHS relies on foreign doctors, nurses, care assistants, specialists, radiographers etc. Without them it would be in even more of a hole than it already is. As you know, most incomers are young and healthy and use public services less than locals.

I suppose your innate hatred of foreigners drives you to spout your vile nonsense.

Why don't you buy some black shorts and march up and down with a bunch of buddies?