Most of his comments follow a similar line mate. Trouble is, he’s not clever enough to pull it off.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Most of his comments follow a similar line mate. Trouble is, he’s not clever enough to pull it off.
Mooooooo BEEF
This ones been simmering for the best part of 3 years or something
This ones been simmering for the best part of 3 years or something
Didn’t you have me on ignore for months/years? Glad to be back but why the change?
Sorry to disappoint, but he’s back on ignore.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
I came across this article in my professional press, that some of you may find interesting...
Clinical negligence lawyers expect a flood of claims in the coming months over fears that cancer diagnosis and treatment have been sidelined during the pandemic.
The journal Lancet Oncology last week predicted that delays in treatment since March could lead to 3,500 avoidable cancer deaths in England in the next five years.
Individual media reports of cancer patients suing the NHS are just the tip of the iceberg, the Gazette has been told. Mary Smith, a Bristol-based medical negligence expert with Novum Law, said that even before the pandemic, the NHS was struggling to meet the demand for services, with over four million people on waiting lists. Current estimates are these numbers will more than double.
‘The pandemic has created a “perfect storm” in which patients have had their tests and treatment deferred,’ said Smith. ‘Many have found their condition has deteriorated or their prognosis is much worse as a result, while others have put off accessing the vital services they need.’
Julie Grayston from north-west firm Graystons Solicitors, said there is likely to be a surge of cases, although currently people are reluctant to pursue the NHS.
She added: ‘The problem will be whether the decision was correct at the time that treatment should stop or that people shouldn’t go to hospital. I think the fundamental issue is that the decision was made without any individual discussion to weigh up the risks of delaying treatment.’
Paul Rumley, chair of the Society of Clinical Negligence Lawyers, said there has yet to be an increase in cases related to diagnosis and treatment being delayed, but this may become apparent over time. He stressed that compensation payments are likely to be case‑specific.
‘The balancing factor is whether the courts are prepared to allow such claims or whether defendants successfully argue it is a resources issue – that so much was being thrown at a pandemic that other services had to suffer, but that was reasonable and therefore excusable.’
Clinical negligence lawyers expect a flood of claims in the coming months over fears that cancer diagnosis and treatment have been sidelined during the pandemic.
The journal Lancet Oncology last week predicted that delays in treatment since March could lead to 3,500 avoidable cancer deaths in England in the next five years.
Individual media reports of cancer patients suing the NHS are just the tip of the iceberg, the Gazette has been told. Mary Smith, a Bristol-based medical negligence expert with Novum Law, said that even before the pandemic, the NHS was struggling to meet the demand for services, with over four million people on waiting lists. Current estimates are these numbers will more than double.
‘The pandemic has created a “perfect storm” in which patients have had their tests and treatment deferred,’ said Smith. ‘Many have found their condition has deteriorated or their prognosis is much worse as a result, while others have put off accessing the vital services they need.’
Julie Grayston from north-west firm Graystons Solicitors, said there is likely to be a surge of cases, although currently people are reluctant to pursue the NHS.
She added: ‘The problem will be whether the decision was correct at the time that treatment should stop or that people shouldn’t go to hospital. I think the fundamental issue is that the decision was made without any individual discussion to weigh up the risks of delaying treatment.’
Paul Rumley, chair of the Society of Clinical Negligence Lawyers, said there has yet to be an increase in cases related to diagnosis and treatment being delayed, but this may become apparent over time. He stressed that compensation payments are likely to be case‑specific.
‘The balancing factor is whether the courts are prepared to allow such claims or whether defendants successfully argue it is a resources issue – that so much was being thrown at a pandemic that other services had to suffer, but that was reasonable and therefore excusable.’
The lawyers are going to have a field day i'm afraid as it will come down often to individual circumstances for both claimant & defendant in the sense that did the NHS trust make arrangements asap to restart treatments for example using separate facilities to the main hospital .
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Agreed.
I believe the number of predicted "unnecessary" deaths is also woefully small. I think they have discounted the effect that stress caused by the Government's scare tactics, as well as by the nature of the lockdown and general tensions in society caused by the Government's measures, within the general population (of which cancer sufferers form part) will have severe confounding effects, over time.
Incidentally, this very scenario was predicted by Dr Vernon Coleman, the old retired doctor, whom some on this thread have been very quick to mock and dismiss.
I will say it again, the consequences that we are being forced to suffer as a result of the strategy adopted over this covid pandemic will vastly outweigh the benefits gained, and those consequences will be played out over at least the next decade.
The main issue was the number of referrals dropping off, not treatments being stopped or deferred. So people going to their GP with routine symptoms but the GP sending them for tests that then lead to a diagnosis.
you would know if you had actually read much of this thread that this element has always been discussed on here and that is the reason the excess deaths is the best indicator of the human cost of the pandemic over the years .
Though that will still not account for the deterioration in quality of life due to for example a long delayed hip replacement unless it leads to a shortened life .
in a lot of areas even cancer treatments were halted and that may well lead to claims .
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Why are you still having pop?
The additional needless deaths due to cancer really is just the tip of the iceberg. The untold suffering of hundreds of thousands of others (until they eventually do die), strung out because of this obsession with covid 19, as well as the suffering caused by a thousand other conditions that have been worsened and exacerbated by this pathetic obsession, including the many hundreds of thousands more who will suffer from depression and other mental illnesses - all of this has to be put into the reckoning, along with financial collapse and the destruction of businesses.
I have said, right from the very start, that the way in which certain governments have handled this pandemic has been nothing short of a crime against humanity, and I stand by that statement.
I didn’t say otherwise. I said the main issue was the lack of referrals and thus diagnosis, and still is.
I'm just pointing out that the discussion of the balance of risks has taken place previously yet you seem to be labouring under the impression none of us had even considered the non covid cost .
- Status