:covid_19: đŸ˜· đŸ„ Corona Virus the thread for all your fears ❓

To be fair NICE is free of political influence, It does not manage budgets
 It does play an important role in assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of a product (the drugs budget is about 10% of overall NHS spend). Without such HTA (Health technology assessment) manufacturers would simply charge what they wanted irrespective of whether the drug really added any benefit over existing drugs on the market. NICE is not there to prevent access to new or expensive drugs, its there to make sure there is value to the patient if its funded. The restrictions to access we often read about in the headlines in MSM, are mostly misunderstood
 If current drug efficacy (with outcomes measured say in Overall survival is 65% and it costs £10,000, and a new drug has an OS of 75% but costs £20,000, the most sensible way is not to give everyone the new drug, but from the data extract which patients would benefit from the new drug as 1st line treatment vs those for who it should be reserved if the current drug fails etc
 versus those in which it would have no benefit at all, and then publish guidelines to that effect. That is what NICE does.

What often causes issues in the media is when new drugs are not approved because either COST of incremental benefit which we measure as a Quality adjusted life year (QALY), is considered too high for the benefit it provides
 Our threshold at this time is around £30,000 cost per QALY
 in simple terms, If your life expectancy is currently 1 year, and the new drug gives an average of 1.5 years, there is an expectation that this would not cost more than an extra £15k
 that’s an over simplification, as actual calculation is a little more complex, but it paints the picture. Of course on an individual level we cant put a price on what 6 months should be worth, but on a population basis we have to IF we want to be able to have a healthcare system funded by taxation and not one funded by private insurance.

As an example, we hear a lot about full access to all these new drugs and treatments in the US
 but their free-pricing and private approach means drugs are usually 10x more expensive than in Europe, and you need a policy that will cost you about £2500 per MONTH for a family of 4 if you want access without a co-pay. Access to these same medicines is greater in some European countries, simply because they pay more into the system and or have co-payments, well in excess of our ‘prescription charge’

Any publicly funded system needs such a health technology assessment, and all major EU countries have one. What we really need is a budget that is reflective of the care we demand and a public willing to pay for it. 
with the funds then also FREE of political and outside of the chancellors years cost cutting and austerity mechanisms.

6 Likes

More easing here.

That said, no fvcking way am I getting into a Van & driving tourists to Auschwitz anytime soon


Brilliant - got my test results back!
I’m Covid-19 free. That is SUCH a relief.

11 Likes

that’s fake its says large penis
 unless its referring to personality :wink:

7 Likes

A long and “concerning” read indicating the complexity of what we are fighting

Defo fake, there’s only 12 months in a year last time I checked.

2 Likes

The BBC has issued a statement about the criticism of the Panorama programme

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/panorama-mon-27-apr

Text of statement


BBC Statement on Panorama, Monday 27 April: Has The Government Failed the NHS?

Date: 29.04.2020 Last updated: 29.04.2020 at 15.58

Category: Corporate

Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience.

It featured four new revelations:

  • That the billion plus items of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that the government has supplied included cleaning products and individually counted gloves, which is sourced from a document tracking national PPE supply.
  • That gowns, visors, swabs and body bags were not included in the pandemic stockpile. Last year expert advisory committee NERVTAG (The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group) recommended gowns be added to that stockpile but they were not. This is sourced from NERVTAG minutes. The lack of any gowns, visors, swabs and body bags in the stockpile was confirmed by Public Health England.
  • That although 33 million FFP3 respirator masks were specified in the stockpile procurement list, only 12 million have been distributed. The programme sought, but received no explanation from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for what happened to the other 21 million.
  • That steps to remove Covid-19 from the High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) list were taken by the DHSC on 13 March, the same day PPE guidance was downgraded. Sources on the committee who supported the removal of Covid-19 from the HCID list told Panorama the decision to remove it was in part based on how much PPE was available.

The sources for the new revelations were not the doctors who appeared in the programme.

We were in regular contact with DHSC to give them the opportunity to respond and we included responses from the Government throughout the programme.

The programme spoke to a range of interviewees, including public health policy experts, and those involved in the supply of PPE. Where it was relevant, we indicated that they had been vocally critical of the Government.

We also wanted to include the personal experiences of doctors and nurses who are risking their lives to treat Covid-19. More than 100 NHS and other healthcare workers are known to have died with Covid-19 to date. Some of those interviewed are members of a political party and some are not. We believe that if the doctors featured in Panorama feel their lives are at risk due to lack of proper PPE it is valid, and indeed in the public interest, for them to reflect on that experience, regardless of the political views they may or may not hold.

Some NHS Trusts have discouraged health care workers from discussing the lack of PPE. So it is perhaps not surprising that those willing to speak out are more involved with campaigning around the NHS. We did signpost that issue in the programme - highlighting how few are willing to speak out. We spoke to dozens of health care workers during the making of the programme and they all had concerns about the shortage of PPE. These concerns have also been reflected by the BMA and the Royal Colleges.

We speak to a wide range of people in the course of our journalism. However, with the exception of a nurse who we identified as a union representative, none of the interviewees were sourced through trade unions.

There have also been social media allegations that the BBC ‘held back publicity’ for this programme. This is not the case. The programme was not finished until Monday afternoon. The BBC then issued a press release detailing its findings. They were covered on the News at Six (the BBC’s most-watched bulletin), and the News at Ten that evening, were written up on the BBC News website, and were put to the government minister interviewed on the next morning’s Today programme and BBC Breakfast.

3 Likes

tl/dr

All good. Did our homework. Trust the BBC.

The sad thing is they’ve probably done everything they’ve said and are being prosecuted on past crimes.

Trust a member of the public to get to the meat of the matter.

Under review

Presumably we’ll make our minds up when they’re all dead or cured?

So, let’s see what’s happened today.
Michael Gove admits that he only read the Cygnus pandemic planning report last week.
Government spokesman lies that 26,000 people have died when the true figure is estimated to be at least 45,000.
Hancock caught out accessing Conservative Party membership data base to send e mails to members pleading with them to apply for a test in a desperate attempt to reach 100,000 by the end of the month ie tomorrow, (today’s figure is 42,000).
The government have instructed inquests into Covid 19 NHS staff deaths not to look at PPE shortages.

The Media. - A BABY!
We are fucked.

1 Like

You know the way we have to pay millions every year to keep Tony Blair protected.

Yeah, there’s probably going to be a lot more of that.

A Coronoviris fact

As of 28th April 58356 Americans have died of the disease.

58,220 were killed in the Vietnam War

Full blog post

April 28, 2020 (Tuesday)

As of today, at least 58,356 American have died from the coronavirus.

58,220 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

As the numbers of infections are steadying in some places, states are gradually reopening, against the advice of public health advisors, and despite the fact that between 60% and 81% of Americans (depending on the poll) agree they want to “continue to social distance for as long as needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.”

At stake appears to be the same ideological struggle that has existed between Republicans and Democrats since the 1980s. Should government provide a social safety net for its people to carry them through this pandemic—a social safety net that will cost tax dollars-- or should people support themselves, regardless of the danger?

Beginning with Georgia’s Brian Kemp, Republican governors began the process of ordering open retail establishments like nail salons, restaurants, malls, and so on, last week. Immediately, critics charged that the premature reopenings were an attempt to keep people off unemployment rolls, where the exploding number of cases was running state finances dry. These state coffers could only be repaid by imposing higher taxes.

When asked last week whether or not employees could refuse to go back to work out of fear of contracting Covid-19, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, said no. “If you’re an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to, that’s a voluntary quit," she said. “Therefore, they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.” The same is true in Texas, where Republican Governor Greg Abbott recently called for retail establishments to reopen on Friday. To collect unemployment benefits in Texas, a worker must be “willing and able to work all the days and hours required for the type of work you are seeking.”

Workers at meat processing plants have been hit especially hard by Covid-19, and at least 13 have had to close. The processing plants in most trouble have been pork plants, where employers have been cutting costs and speeding up production for years, increasing efficiency by stationing workers side by side. As employees sicken and die from coronavirus, employers face liability for risking their workers’ lives. They have said they would have to close more plants, choking off the nation’s meat supply.

Today, Trump announced that he will use the Defense Production Act to force meat processing plants to stay open. “We’re going to sign an executive order today, I believe, and that’ll solve any liability problems,” Trump said.

By declaring meat packing a part of the nation’s critical infrastructure, the president can demand it continue to operate in an emergency. Since Congress passed the DPA in the 1950s, presidents have used it to keep vital supplies moving, and food is certainly a vital supply. But never before has a president had to grapple with what it means to invoke this law when a pandemic puts its burden not on business leaders but on American workers, whose lives are at stake. That Trump’s primary concern was over employer liability in this case is revealing.

Protecting businesses from liability if their workers or customers get sick is on the table in Congress, as well. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said there is no way he will consider another bill to address the dislocations caused by the coronavirus unless it protects businesses that reopen from liability if someone in them catches Covid-19. “We have a red line on liability,” McConnell said. “It won’t pass the Senate without it.”

At the same time, it turns out the $500 billion in emergency aid to large corporations provided in the $2.2 trillion coronavirus package does not carry certain restrictions. The aid is a loan. The Federal Reserve will buy up to $500 billion in company bonds to provide cash for the corporation, and the money must be repaid with interest. But the law does not require a corporation using this program to protect jobs or to limit compensation for executives or shareholders, unlike the programs for small and midsize businesses.

The Payment Protection Plan requires that small businesses certify they will use the money to “retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage payments, lease payments, and utility payments.” The program for midsize businesses—the “Main Street” program—requires recipients to try to keep their workers on, and it limits executive compensation and forbids dividends until a year after the loan is repaid.

Cornell economist Eswar Prasad talked to Washington Post reporters Jeff Stein and Peter Whoriskey about the leniency of the program for large corporations. “I am struck that the administration is relying on the good will of the companies receiving this assistance. A few months down the road, after the government purchases its debt, the company can turn around and issue a bunch of dividends to shareholders or fire its workers, and there’s no clear path to get it back.”

What Democrats want in a new coronavirus package is to bail out state governments crippled by a lack of the tax dollars that fund their states. This request is what has sparked the criticism from McConnell, Florida Senator Rick Scott, and Fox News Channel personalities about “blue state bailouts,” as well as the backlash from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who point out that their Democratic states put more money into the federal government than they take out, while Republican states Kentucky and Florida do the opposite.

The fight over state relief brings into focus the ideological struggle between the parties. In a really terrific article in The Atlantic this week, conservative writer David Frum explains that McConnell’s call for blue states to declare bankruptcy has been a pet project of Republican Party leaders since 2011. Compared to Republican states, Democratic states provide generous benefits to state retirees, including health care packages (a deal that is implicit when state workers accept lower salaries throughout their careers than they would earn in the private sector). Those pensions are supported with tax dollars, which currently have dried up. At the same time, health costs continue to go up.

Bankruptcy would not mean states defaulted on all their debt. Bankruptcy is a legal process that would permit a federal judge to decide what bills would be paid, so it would essentially allow Republican appointees at the federal level (remember all those judges?) to impose their ideology on Democratic states by determining their spending. Republican judges would protect wealthy bondholders but slash pensions and healthcare. Frum notes that Republican calls for state bankruptcy are explicit that “a federal law of state bankruptcy ‘must explicitly forbid any federal judge from mandating a tax hike.’”

McConnell is unlikely to get the idea of forcing states into bankruptcy through Congress, but his reluctance to bail out suffering states is nonetheless instructive. The pandemic has given him the chance to empower Republican lawmakers from poor states to dismantle the social safety nets of wealthy Democratic states. Frum notes that McConnell is likely worried that Democrats will end his Senate leadership by taking the Senate this fall, so he is working as hard as he can “to refashion the federal government in ways that will constrain his successors.”

Trump has his own angle on using the pandemic to cement Republican ideology. Today he suggested that federal aid to rescue states would depend on their willingness to adopt his policies. In order to receive emergency money to survive the pandemic, they would likely have to stop protecting undocumented immigrants from arrest and cut payroll taxes.

It is, one might say, a quid pro quo.

Some sense in this article, I really believe that the Government can’t/shouldn’t endorse or condone the Premier League restarting.

1 Like

One player testing positive after a game, takes 2 clubs out of the competition, possibly more. It’s just not workable.

2 Likes

I disagree. Having seen table football in action, one could easily create a human sized solution.

We might not even have to skewer the players.

5 Likes

81k test yesterday

They are going to get close

The missus has got the briefing on the telly in the front room, I can hear it and am cringing at Boris’ words