• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
I'm not dismissive at all of those who survive Covid, but I do question the focus on survival as the only outcome that matters from infection. It is used by many who seek to downplay the significance of the pandemic as a rhetorical device to distract from any other consequences of Covid, and generally downplay the severity of the disease.

But that’s the problem, there’s been too much focus on how many have died and not on how many have recovered, the fact is, Covid does have a high survival rate, it’s doom mongers who like to focus on the negatives and act out their authoritarian fantasies
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011

"Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?"

If a 25 year old has done their knee in then the NHS will usually look to operate on it as the cost to society will be far greater over the long term if they have to retire earlier or simply cannot do their job toward the later stages of their working life.

Likewise the same argument could be made for everyone under 40 who are nowhere near reliant on the health service as the over the 60s. It's in society's interests to ensure that the working age are able to work as these people will predominantly pay the taxes through work to fund.

But you're going to refuse treatment because they've not had a vaccine for an illness which does not pose a great risk to them? Good luck with that. You realise how insane such an idea is when you consider the bigger picture and demographics.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
The questions of prioritisation are valid and interesting. My own take is that it is Covid that has caused utter mayhem over the last year, and demonstrated in a way that flu has not an ability to suck the life out of healthcare systems - not just the NHS, but more widely. Unlike cancer, it is infectious, and unlike both cancer and road deaths, is new and unfamiliar. We do need to learn to live with risk, which is why I have been dogmatic on data rather than dates, as it is developing an intuitive understanding of risk that will allows us to learn to live with Covid over time.

However, I also take the view that vaccines against transmissible diseases are for both personal and collective benefit. We have vaccines against Covid, and can see from the progress that's been made so far here and elsewhere that they are extremely effective in containing this disease. In those circumstances, I find it hard to comprehend how or why anyone should not be willing to take those vaccines for both their own direct benefit and that of others; in certain contexts (health care being one), I also see that as a really basic thing that staff can do to protect their patients and struggle with the ethics of not mandating it.

If similarly safe and effective vaccines were available for other diseases, for example flu, then I would absolutely extend my opinion to those - it is not Covid specific.
I have heard a few reasons.
My dad in his 80s. why spend the money on me.
others are scared about the after affects, the ones that may show up in the future. A lot of them anti-vax propaganda but the we have live through MMR.
some feel it is better to vaccinate a 60 year old in Africa rather than themselves a person in their 20s who will survive it.
the link between vacations not breaking the chain seems to cause much debate. But if someone isn’t likely to die but can still transmit it I can understand why some may not rush to have it.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
According to this source.


Country,
Other
Total
Cases
New
Cases
Total
Deaths
New
Deaths
Total
Recovered
Active
Cases
Serious,
Critical
Tot Cases/
1M pop
Deaths/
1M pop
Total
Tests
Tests/
1M pop
Population
World174,117,288+75,4433,745,456+1,613157,424,06912,947,76387,05022,338480.5

So 91% of those that have got tested survive.

These statistics will of course be debated. Are China's too low? Are the UKs to high (as they record anyone with a positive test in the last 28 days so someone could die of a heart attack who happens to have had a positive test). Then people such as myself my have had it but not got tested as dismissed it as flu (because Covid didn't exist in the UK at the time).

I will not dismiss the high number of people that have tragically died, but the survival rate is fairly high compared to getting hit by a car if you are a motorcycle.

However the risk of dying from being on a motorcycle is still fairly low.

But why is Covid the only preventable death that people seem to want to get rid of? Why are we not putting as much effort into cancer (which is now a lower priority than Covid), or deaths in road traffic accidents. Cycling is now more risky because the lots of people think the only safe way of getting from A-B is drive. 90% of people getting Covid survive, I bet motorcyclists wish their survival rate was that high when they are hit by cars - but no-one cares about this... (Of course by the logic of this thread the motorcyclist should be refused treatment by the NHS if the accident was their fault, as should the person that didn't get their lump checked out that turns out to be cancer because they didn't want to burden the NHS and its obsession with covid)

Long term cycling is safer (in terms of life expectancy) than driving, as the extra fitness that you have more than offsets the risk of death whilst cycling.

But that’s the problem, there’s been too much focus on how many have died and not on how many have recovered, the fact is, Covid does have a high survival rate, it’s doom mongers who like to focus on the negatives and act out their authoritarian fantasies

Survival rate for the next 12 months from road deaths is 0.01%, clearly that's tiny and so we should just let motorists drive how they like and not do anything to try and make our roads safer, as even if the risk of death increased by a factor of 10 we'd still be less than 0.1% chance of dying on the roads in the next 12 months.

Whilst I agree that our response should be proportional, it should be noted that if we're just let something happen which would kill 0.05% of the population each year we'd be condemning over 30,000 people to death in the UK. If we could lower that risk then we reduce those deaths (clearly there comes a point where it's not really worth the effort, for instance if the only way to reduce road deaths from 500/year to 50/year was to ban cars then that's not a cost we'd be willing to pay).
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The questions of prioritisation are valid and interesting. My own take is that it is Covid that has caused utter mayhem over the last year, and demonstrated in a way that flu has not an ability to suck the life out of healthcare systems - not just the NHS, but more widely. Unlike cancer, it is infectious, and unlike both cancer and road deaths, is new and unfamiliar. We do need to learn to live with risk, which is why I have been dogmatic on data rather than dates, as it is developing an intuitive understanding of risk that will allows us to learn to live with Covid over time.
Covid didn't cause governments to panic buy unsuitable PPE for their healthcare services, nor did it instigate mass testing or even mass vaccination of groups considered low at risk. Politicians and their advisors did. A considerable amount of the cost to the NHS came about through poor decisions, panic and fear mongering at the political level. There are even suggestions that at least some of the drivers may have been driven by greed.

Yes the NHS went through a very difficult period, but it didn't collapse & unless the vaccine is ineffective then is unlikely to see those levels again, at least because of covid. There are however 4.5 million people still waiting for treatment, close to 10 million people who have seen serious loss in their wages or even job loses, and quite literally hundreds of billions of money that could have been purposed gone from the public purse. The NHS is now more likely to suffer as a result of this than covid, indeed some of their staff are already feeling the impact.

However, I also take the view that vaccines against transmissible diseases are for both personal and collective benefit. We have vaccines against Covid, and can see from the progress that's been made so far here and elsewhere that they are extremely effective in containing this disease. In those circumstances, I find it hard to comprehend how or why anyone should not be willing to take those vaccines for both their own direct benefit and that of others; in certain contexts (health care being one), I also see that as a really basic thing that staff can do to protect their patients and struggle with the ethics of not mandating it.

If similarly safe and effective vaccines were available for other diseases, for example flu, then I would absolutely extend my opinion to those - it is not Covid specific.
You like to assess the data, so here's a question for you. What are the actual risks of passing covid on to another, and causing them to need urgent medical care? And while we are at it, what are the risks of doing the same with influenza? Or maybe the common cold? What about the risk you pose directly or indirectly driving on the road, or crossing it on foot.

Quite literally every decision we make, every interaction we have, ever single move we take (almost burst into song there) has an effect on people around us. But we cannot shape our decisions around each and every one, we'd never leave our rooms again. Vaccines are a vital tool in dealing with viruses, but their function is best described as for personal protection, not for a perceived "greater good". That is something almost unique to this virus, and is a direct result of political messaging, designed to make the individual feel guilty for simply existing. And frankly that is going to be bad for peoples mental wellbeing now & in the future. So one last question, what are the risks for making people feel so guilty it can affect their mental health?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Covid didn't cause governments to panic buy unsuitable PPE for their healthcare services, nor did it instigate mass testing or even mass vaccination of groups considered low at risk. Politicians and their advisors did. A considerable amount of the cost to the NHS came about through poor decisions, panic and fear mongering at the political level. There are even suggestions that at least some of the drivers may have been driven by greed.

Yes the NHS went through a very difficult period, but it didn't collapse & unless the vaccine is ineffective then is unlikely to see those levels again, at least because of covid. There are however 4.5 million people still waiting for treatment, close to 10 million people who have seen serious loss in their wages or even job loses, and quite literally hundreds of billions of money that could have been purposed gone from the public purse. The NHS is now more likely to suffer as a result of this than covid, indeed some of their staff are already feeling the impact.


You like to assess the data, so here's a question for you. What are the actual risks of passing covid on to another, and causing them to need urgent medical care? And while we are at it, what are the risks of doing the same with influenza? Or maybe the common cold? What about the risk you pose directly or indirectly driving on the road, or crossing it on foot.

Quite literally every decision we make, every interaction we have, ever single move we take (almost burst into song there) has an effect on people around us. But we cannot shape our decisions around each and every one, we'd never leave our rooms again. Vaccines are a vital tool in dealing with viruses, but their function is best described as for personal protection, not for a perceived "greater good". That is something almost unique to this virus, and is a direct result of political messaging, designed to make the individual feel guilty for simply existing. And frankly that is going to be bad for peoples mental wellbeing now & in the future. So one last question, what are the risks for making people feel so guilty it can affect their mental health?
We need to agree to disagree on the role of vaccination - the impact of vaccination programmes is general, not just specific.

As for the impact of this virus, I agree it is fairly unique - it is new, and has therefore played havoc with our perceptions of risk. But, ignoring percentages, I'm struggling to remember a "flu season" when the impact on the health service has been so severe as to force near closure to all except the one condition. That empirical observation has an enormous weight in my mind about the proportionality of a mass vaccination based response - precisely to avoid the kind of economic dislocation we've suffered this last year.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
However the risk of dying from being on a motorcycle is still fairly low.



Long term cycling is safer (in terms of life expectancy) than driving, as the extra fitness that you have more than offsets the risk of death whilst cycling.



Survival rate for the next 12 months from road deaths is 0.01%, clearly that's tiny and so we should just let motorists drive how they like and not do anything to try and make our roads safer, as even if the risk of death increased by a factor of 10 we'd still be less than 0.1% chance of dying on the roads in the next 12 months.

Whilst I agree that our response should be proportional, it should be noted that if we're just let something happen which would kill 0.05% of the population each year we'd be condemning over 30,000 people to death in the UK. If we could lower that risk then we reduce those deaths (clearly there comes a point where it's not really worth the effort, for instance if the only way to reduce road deaths from 500/year to 50/year was to ban cars then that's not a cost we'd be willing to pay).

Oh dear here comes the car crash comparison!

It’s a completely different situation and no one would ever advocate reckless driving.

We never focused on the amount of people who died of flu every year,
Some years have been worse than others, yet there were barely any news reports on those deaths with the exception of a couple of articles which have been forgotten about.

There have been low hospitalisations recently yet the media is still obsessed with cases, we’re a year into Covid and it hasn’t become the world ending virus we thought it would become back in late 2019/early 2020, Covid will become something we will live with and much like the flu where there maybe deaths
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
We need to agree to disagree on the role of vaccination - the impact of vaccination programmes is general, not just specific.
Agreed.

As for the impact of this virus, I agree it is fairly unique - it is new, and has therefore played havoc with our perceptions of risk. But, ignoring percentages, I'm struggling to remember a "flu season" when the impact on the health service has been so severe as to force near closure to all except the one condition. That empirical observation has an enormous weight in my mind about the proportionality of a mass vaccination based response - precisely to avoid the kind of economic dislocation we've suffered this last year.
Aha, now perception of risk, there's something at the heart of this problem. @yorkie previously posted a link to a video from a Swedish psychologist about how as we came to live in an safer society, so our perception of risk became more heightened. I firmly believe that this is what we have been seeing these last 16 months, the knee-jerk reaction to a perceived risk. For example the much lauded "Nightingale Hospitals" that were by in large never used. They were born out of this panic, that the streets would be full of dead bodies, hospitals treating people in car parks and all manner of chaos. That never emerged, and the money spent on them would now clearly have been better purposed elsewhere.

As for previous strains on the NHS, it doesn't take long to find them. Just query your favoured search engine, and you'll find year after year of NHS crisis, with flu often at the centre of them. There's also some years with 50K + deaths in there, with the only difference being that the government didn't go into blind panics.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
Agreed.


Aha, now perception of risk, there's something at the heart of this problem. @yorkie previously posted a link to a video from a Swedish psychologist about how as we came to live in an safer society, so our perception of risk became more heightened. I firmly believe that this is what we have been seeing these last 16 months, the knee-jerk reaction to a perceived risk. For example the much lauded "Nightingale Hospitals" that were by in large never used. They were born out of this panic, that the streets would be full of dead bodies, hospitals treating people in car parks and all manner of chaos. That never emerged, and the money spent on them would now clearly have been better purposed elsewhere.

As for previous strains on the NHS, it doesn't take long to find them. Just query your favoured search engine, and you'll find year after year of NHS crisis, with flu often at the centre of them. There's also some years with 50K + deaths in there, with the only difference being that the government didn't go into blind panics.
The 'knee jerk reaction' which we saw, I still think was purely down to FB/Twitter and 24 hour rolling news, that jumped on the band wagon, this then led the Government to 'panic', and of course some other Countries,were slow to react (as Italy admitted), the USA shrugged it off for a while too and then we had the 'Bodies piled high' pictures, which just bred more panic ? (was it 2017/18 flu season that had 50k deaths, with not a murmour from anyone ? )
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The 'knee jerk reaction' which we saw, I still think was purely down to FB/Twitter and 24 hour rolling news, that jumped on the band wagon, this then led the Government to 'panic', and of course some other Countries,were slow to react (as Italy admitted), the USA shrugged it off for a while too and had the 'Bodies piled high' pictures, just bred more panic ? (was it 2017/18 flu season that had 50k deaths, with not a murmour from anyone ? )
I believe it was, and it was just for the winter season not a year or longer as with covid. But you are right, social media & constant news feed have been very much part of all this panic.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
The 'knee jerk reaction' which we saw, I still think was purely down to FB/Twitter and 24 hour rolling news, that jumped on the band wagon, this then led the Government to 'panic', and of course some other Countries,were slow to react (as Italy admitted), the USA shrugged it off for a while too and then we had the 'Bodies piled high' pictures, which just bred more panic ? (was it 2017/18 flu season that had 50k deaths, with not a murmour from anyone ? )
I was on a forum meet with Yorkie recently and he said that this country has a culture of being seen to be doing something, which is something I agree is true. If they didn't do something (which they initially tried), they would then get roasted by the press (which they did).
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Aha, now perception of risk, there's something at the heart of this problem. @yorkie previously posted a link to a video from a Swedish psychologist about how as we came to live in an safer society, so our perception of risk became more heightened. I firmly believe that this is what we have been seeing these last 16 months, the knee-jerk reaction to a perceived risk. For example the much lauded "Nightingale Hospitals" that were by in large never used. They were born out of this panic, that the streets would be full of dead bodies, hospitals treating people in car parks and all manner of chaos. That never emerged, and the money spent on them would now clearly have been better purposed elsewhere.

As for previous strains on the NHS, it doesn't take long to find them. Just query your favoured search engine, and you'll find year after year of NHS crisis, with flu often at the centre of them. There's also some years with 50K + deaths in there, with the only difference being that the government didn't go into blind panics.
The difference being that the NHS avoided those outcomes by absorbing the surge in Covid cases into existing facilities and staffing at the cost of reducing the capacity of or stopping many normal services. Even in the worst "winter crises", the NHS has never come close to the level of contingency measures that we've seen over the last 18 months. The same has also been seen, in varying degrees related to the underlying capacity of the services, in other wealthy countries.

It's fair to argue perception, but only if it is also acknowledged that the absolute risk level changed markedly as well. Hence my view about vaccination and why it should be compulsory for staff with caring responsibilities.
I was on a forum meet with Yorkie recently and he said that this country has a culture of being seen to be doing something, which is something I agree is true. If they didn't do something (which they initially tried), they would then get roasted by the press (which they did).
He's right. But when a government's duty is to protect it's citizens, it's unsurprising that a democratic government will come under fire for failing in that duty.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
But when a government's duty is to protect it's citizens, it's unsurprising that a democratic government will come under fire for failing in that duty.

The problem here is that we simultaneously expect too little and too much of government, and they are far too willing to play along with those expectations and actually feed them, in an attempt to be seen to be 'doing something'.

For some reason we now expect them to protect us from a respiratory disease, which really isn't in its power, while totally letting them off the hook for other things that *are* in their power but they refuse to even try to do (eg. mitigating the damage to society caused by the collapse of a large business or a specific industry, regulating the financial industry in a sensible manner, or putting proper regulations in place (and properly enforcing them) so that people don't burn to death when buildings go on fire).

It seems that the governments of the 1950s and 1960s did a significantly better job at dealing with the things that they should have been dealing with, and staying away from those they should or could not. The response to the pandemics of the late 1950s and 1960s could not be more stark when compared with today, and I would argue infinitely preferable.

(Equally you could compare the response of the Government to terrorism in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to the approach taken more recently. There's a very similar issue at play there).
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
The problem here is that we simultaneously expect too little and too much of government, and they are far too willing to play along with those expectations and actually feed them, in an attempt to be seen to be 'doing something'.

For some reason we now expect them to protect us from a respiratory disease, which really isn't in its power, while totally letting them off the hook for other things that *are* in their power but they refuse to even try to do (eg. mitigating the damage to society caused by the collapse of a large business or a specific industry, regulating the financial industry in a sensible manner, or putting proper regulations in place (and properly enforcing them) so that people don't burn to death when buildings go on fire).

It seems that the governments of the 1950s and 1960s did a significantly better job at dealing with the things that they should have been dealing with, and staying away from those they should or could not. The response to the pandemics of the late 1950s and 1960s could not be more stark when compared with today, and I would argue infinitely preferable.

(Equally you could compare the response of the Government to terrorism in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to the approach taken more recently. There's a very similar issue at play there).
I agree, but the public has always been (collectively) fickle - just read the Easter narrative from Palm Sunday to Good Friday if you doubt me. As for the proper role of governments, I suggest that in healthcare, the responsibility for expectations sits firmly with Nye Bevan and his centralised vision of the health service - and the row whenever "postcode lottery" comes up because one area does things differently from another.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Oh dear here comes the car crash comparison!

It’s a completely different situation and no one would ever advocate reckless driving.

We never focused on the amount of people who died of flu every year,
Some years have been worse than others, yet there were barely any news reports on those deaths with the exception of a couple of articles which have been forgotten about.

There have been low hospitalisations recently yet the media is still obsessed with cases, we’re a year into Covid and it hasn’t become the world ending virus we thought it would become back in late 2019/early 2020, Covid will become something we will live with and much like the flu where there maybe deaths

"We" may not focus on the number of deaths from flu, however it is something that is considered by public health bodies.

It's why we have significant resources put into encouraging people to have the flu vaccine each year, including offering it to most children (as they are super spreaders even though they generally don't suffer serious illnesses).
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted)

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did not need to cancel operations due to COVID still being a problem when people could do more to prevent serious cases by ensuring their vaccinations are done and timely.
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.

Sorry to hear about the cancelled operation. With hospitalisations falling it seems odd that the ward has been taken over due to covid; could this be another example of covid being used to conceal other failings?

As for the rest of your post, you may wish to cool off and do a bit of editing....
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.
I sympathise very much for your wife as this must be absolutely horrible and were I wearing your shoes I might feel differently but I do think the price we as a society pay by mandating that people fund the NHS via taxation is that it is unreasonable to suggest that they should they be denied treatment ( or do you propose they get a refund !)
In reality we have no idea why people are not wishing to be vaccinated and have no idea if the 88% figure is either relevant or accurate
Are you being told the whole truth?
How many caught Covid in hospital ?
How many are there as a result of false positives?
How many are ill from something else with Covid not the main reason they are in hospital
How many of that percentage are legitimately unable to have the vaccine?
How many were on the UK trials and do not count?
How many were vaccinated abroad but are not counted as vaccinated?

For clarity I am double vaccinated as I think it the right thing to do to protect people such as your wife
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.
Also sorry to hear that. However there are two sides to the coin, my wife had tests for cervical cancer put back & back during the height of the pandemic. Now thankfully when she finally had it she was all clear, but the delay could literally have cost her life.

The decision is being made by NHS bosses, not unvaccinated people. Perhaps your anger needs re-directing?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.

Whilst I do sympathise i'd be less inclined to believe anything they say.

My partner was diagnosed as having Graves Disease in September 2016. It was made clear after tests that it couldn't be controlled through medication and her only option was to have the thyroid removed and was booked for an operation in January 2017. Over a dozen cancellations with some put back 4 or more months and she finally had the operation in March 2020 just before the first lockdown. 42 months from diagnosis to operation.

This has been going on long before Covid, it's just now they have a ready made excuse for the failings.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.

Sorry for your wife.

But if you think unvaccinated people are the cause of this you’re very much mistaken, it’s the NHS bosses, by your logic, smokers and obese people shouldn’t be allowed to use the NHS either because they’re a drain to the service.

Also unvaccinated people pay for the NHS with their taxes so I suggest you cool off a little.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,650
What health authority was this? Given nationwide admissions are on average 1 per 2 hospitals per day, this does sound very unfortunate. We know some local trusts send all COVID patients to one hospital to leave the others, so maybe your hospital was designated as thus. That means this is mostly down to mismanagement rather than directly due to COVID.

I'm very sorry to hear of your situation - it must be incredibly frustrating, but let's remember that the NHS has been like this for years, just now there is a convenient exucse for them to use. Unfortunately it also means its less likely to improve as management will just keep claiming COVID force majeure rather than looking at the failings of the NHS, its management structures and misuse of its ample resources.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Whilst I do sympathise i'd be less inclined to believe anything they say.

My partner was diagnosed as having Graves Disease in September 2016. It was made clear after tests that it couldn't be controlled through medication and her only option was to have the thyroid removed and was booked for an operation in January 2017. Over a dozen cancellations with some put back 4 or more months and she finally had the operation in March 2020 just before the first lockdown. 42 months from diagnosis to operation.

This has been going on long before Covid, it's just now they have a ready made excuse for the failings.

And not only do they have a ready made excuse with COVID, they will keep using it for the next five years or more.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
What health authority was this? Given nationwide admissions are on average 1 per 2 hospitals per day, this does sound very unfortunate. We know some local trusts send all COVID patients to one hospital to leave the others, so maybe your hospital was designated as thus. That means this is mostly down to mismanagement rather than directly due to COVID.

I'm very sorry to hear of your situation - it must be incredibly frustrating, but let's remember that the NHS has been like this for years, just now there is a convenient exucse for them to use. Unfortunately it also means its less likely to improve as management will just keep claiming COVID force majeure rather than looking at the failings of the NHS, its management structures and misuse of its ample resources.
Without letting the local trust off the hook for one moment, hospitals have still been constrained by space requirements to minimise transmission - meaning that their capacity has been reduced even with low numbers of patients coming through.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Without letting the local trust off the hook for one moment, hospitals have still been constrained by space requirements to minimise transmission - meaning that their capacity has been reduced even with low numbers of patients coming through.
However hospital trusts have had 18 months to think about how to manage covid outside of pandemic restrictions. So they are back on the hook.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
However hospital trusts have had 18 months to think about how to manage covid outside of pandemic restrictions. So they are back on the hook.
Given the issues my local trust has faced for many years now, my hope is frankly that having had to cope with Covid restrictions may actually have woken them up to thinking about how they run an efficient service. I won't be banking on it, though.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
My wife has discovered today that her hip operation in mid October has had to be postponed. The reason is the ward has been taken over by A&E overflow due to covid

Separately we know from local news that about 88% of COVID admissions at hospital are not double vaccinated. So it seems that those that haven’t bothered to get vaccinated are directly costing NHS money, causing continuing suffering and physical pain elsewhere.

We cancelled a holiday beginning of November due to this Op, so directly lost money. Now seems Op won’t be until Nov or Dec, and going to have to do all the pre-op assessments again as they will have timed out (more NHS money being wasted by the non-vaccine brigade).

So as it’s become personal, and financially detrimental, I wish the NHS did apply a non treatment of non-vaccinated people, or at least refuse them treatment if it means extending another waiting list. Hope everyone else thinks the non-vaccine idiots are just being selfish if they get ill, attend A&E with COVID and bounce someone else out.
Sorry to hear this.

You are right that the vaccines are incredibly effective and that anyone who is not vaccinated is at far greater risk of hospitalisation than anyone who is not (but equally the risks increase exponentially with age; for anyone under the age of 18 the risks are absolutely miniscule whereas at the age of 80 the risks of not being vaccinated are very significant).

However all we can realistically do is encourage people, and emphasise how effective the vaccines are, and reassure people they are safe (which they absolutely are). Trying to force it on people will backfire.

Already I am hearing reports of people being put off vaccinations for a variety of reasons which are entirely unavoidable, such as:
  • disingenuous claims that vaccines aren't effective in order to push authoritarian agendas (see this post)
  • misunderstandings about the purpose of vaccines (they are to prevent serious illness and are highly effective for that purpose)
  • threats to require proof of vaccination by some Governments/authorities which makes some people push back (I am all up for pushing back against the requirement to show the proof but some people feel the need to push back against vaccination entirely; I don't agree with that position but I understand why people feel this way)
  • the more hard a line is taken, the more people are likely to resist; if we want people to change their mind, we need to do so by persuading them, not forcing them.

I don't see how it would be feasible to say that people who make poor life choices can be excluded from getting treatment, at least certainly not on a routine basis except in very extreme circumstances. If we say that people over a certain age who have chosen not to get vaccinated cannot be treated for Covid19, we'd surely have to make a similar decision for people who have chosen to smoke or to drink excessively, and then there's the thorny issue of obesity. But that would be fraught with problems and is a very slippery slope to go down. It would threaten to create a two tier society. It would be open to legal challenge. All these factors affect more deprived people to a much greater extent than more affluent people so it would widen the inequality gap even further.

We need to be careful, and realistic, for what we wish for...
 

asw22

Member
Joined
23 May 2018
Messages
118
Since the start of July the number of people in UK hospitals has been rising slowly to a peak on 14 Sept and has started to drop again although this peak was much lower than the Nov 2020, Jan 2021 and Apr 2020 peaks

Assuming a vaccine efficacy of 90% and an original R value of 3 then
Vaccine take up of 100% reduces the R value to 0.3
Vaccine take up of 95% reduces the R value to 0.44
Vaccine take up of 90% reduces the R value to 0.57
So not much difference between these.

So is covid the real underlying cause or could there be other explanatory factors?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
Since the start of July the number of people in UK hospitals has been rising slowly to a peak on 14 Sept and has started to drop again although this peak was much lower than the Nov 2020, Jan 2021 and Apr 2020 peaks

Assuming a vaccine efficacy of 90% and an original R value of 3 then
Vaccine take up of 100% reduces the R value to 0.3
Vaccine take up of 95% reduces the R value to 0.44
Vaccine take up of 90% reduces the R value to 0.57
So not much difference between these.

So is covid the real underlying cause or could there be other explanatory factors?
Bear in mind that "R" is an average across whatever population you choose to measure it against.

If you measure "R" among young people specifically, then you will get a much higher value as many of them have not yet built up sufficient immunity for infections to be avoided and if these people are mixing with each other, we'll get a lot of infections in such groups and this will continue until the level of population immunity among all groups that mix has reached a high enough level.

But I completely agree with you that many of the people in hospital will be due to other factors, and much more so those that are vaccinated.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
Everyone who has contributed to National Insurance they should be treated irrespective of their vaccine status. What for instance say has a broken arm got to do with your vaccine status anyway? There is a great danger of creating another version of apartheid not based on skin colour but vaccination status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top