https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-outbreak-hospital-to-be-built-in-fiv...
5 days, that's mental
Now that's impressive .
TWS
But what about the consultation phases and planning meetings and budget reviews and revisions and refinements and more consulting.....
> But what about the consultation phases and planning meetings and budget reviews and revisions and refinements and more consulting.....
No need what the government says goes .
I do admire the Chinese generally for having a long term plan and strategy for the countries development.
We in the west just seem to fall from issue to issue/back and forth between left and right without one , or so it seems to me .
In this country it would take longer than 5 days to draw up the risk assessments for the initial planning meeting.
I guess that's the advantage of a one-party socialist republic
See folks, you should've voted for Jezza in December!
M.A.S.H?
All depends on what it's like,
You can shuffle 500 shipping containers with 5000 camp beds into line relatively quickly.
Will it be a functioning hospital - or merely a quarantine pen?
I am sure our NGO's and military could throw up a very good size temporary hospital in a matter of days if they had to.......... it is their equivalent.
> All depends on what it's like,
> You can shuffle 500 shipping containers with 5000 camp beds into line relatively quickly.
> Will it be a functioning hospital - or merely a quarantine pen?
There is that to consider .
It could be a disposal unit I suppose
> You can shuffle 500 shipping containers with 5000 camp beds into line relatively quickly.
I was talking with somebody last week about how new hospitals could be a bit more like this; not literally as spartan but the basic buildings should be much more functional, more like industrial units.
We tend to build hugely expensive fantastic looking buildings which within very few years are obsolete and difficult to alter or expand, e.g. Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham.
In the end it's what happens inside a hospital that's crucial not what it looks like from the outside.
> Will it be a functioning hospital - or merely a quarantine pen?
If a pandemic should hit U.K. shores quarantine pens would be the best we could hope for. There is simply no spare capacity within the healthcare system. A situation greatly compounded by the number of people demanding emergency treatment for stuff like diarrhoea, constipation and flu.
> If a pandemic should hit U.K. shores quarantine pens would be the best we could hope for. There is simply no spare capacity within the healthcare system. A situation greatly compounded by the number of people demanding emergency treatment for stuff like diarrhoea, constipation and flu.
There's loads of Military Training Camps and Barracks in the UK that could be turned into rudimentary hospitals fairly quickly.
And schools and hotels etc. If something like this hits, travel is going to be severely restricted just like in China.
> In this country it would take longer than 5 days to draw up the risk assessments for the initial planning meeting.
During the Foot and Mouth crisis, that was pretty much what was happening and at one point there seemed to be no way of stopping it.
Luckily, they got the Army involved and they just turned up and did things without waiting for accommodation, offices and telephones to be installed, etc.
> There's loads of Military Training Camps and Barracks in the UK that could be turned into rudimentary hospitals fairly quickly.
Staffed by who exactly. Unfilled NHS nurse vacancies alone currently stand at over 40,000.
> Staffed by who exactly.
Soldiers
Granted the treatment you receive may not be quite what you expect but it would end your suffering
I've watched enough virus / plague movies to know how it goes.
> I've watched enough virus / plague movies to know how it goes.
Make sure your not the first person to have a seemingly pointless conversation with the lead character - because then you'll definitely be the first casualty 20 minutes later.
> Staffed by who exactly. Unfilled NHS nurse vacancies alone currently stand at over 40,000.
If it gets to the stage that they're having to use Military bases to treat and isolate, then the whole concept of the NHS would have to be temporarily suspended.
No non-essential operations and as many staff as possible used solely to deal with the pandemic, Triage where one of the options is allowing people to die with little or no treatment, Private Hospitals either sequestrated or it's staff sent elsewhere, medical staff to patient ratios minimal compared to what they are in a NHS hospital.
This is the sort of situation that has been part of Emergency Planning for years and they could, if needed, activate it quicker than perhaps bears thinking about.
> Triage where one of the options is allowing people to die with little or no treatment,
With the current level of service demand, if a Spanish flu type event hit us (year long pandemic, 25% of the population effected), that would be the most likely result. Personally speaking, I don't think that's acceptable.
> https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-outbreak-hospital-to-be-built-in-fiv... > 5 days, that's mental > Now that's impressive .
Let's ask China to build HS2 for us
Let's ask China to build the new Heathrow runway (or new London airport) for us
Job done, then I might see them before I croak
> With the current level of service demand, if a Spanish flu type event hit us (year long pandemic, 25% of the population effected), that would be the most likely result. Personally speaking, I don't think that's acceptable.
No health service in the world could cope. In a pandemic that threatens globally those in the know seem to talk about containment, acceptable losses, to protect the majority of the population. Not to try and protect everyone.
> Staffed by who exactly. Unfilled NHS nurse vacancies alone currently stand at over 40,000.
The trained staff treat the complications. The rest just monitor, there's obviously no vaccine to administer.
> No health service in the world could cope.
True but ours has far less capacity to spare than most in Europe. According to the last available figures, the UK had around 2.3 acute beds per 1000 inhabitants, compared to the EU average of 3.7 per 1000. More than 50% less available capacity is quite a gap.
> The trained staff treat the complications. The rest just monitor, there's obviously no vaccine to administer.
There are a whole range of drugs and treatments available to ease and ameliorate the effects of respiratory infections, but you need trained staff to assess, rule out contra-indications and administer.
> True but ours has far less capacity to spare than most in Europe. According to the last available figures, the UK had around 2.3 acute beds per 1000 inhabitants, compared to the EU average of 3.7 per 1000. More than 50% less available capacity is quite a gap.
If there was or is a truly killer virus out there now, you think one bed per thousand will make any difference? If a virus kills 4% of those who catch it, having a bed for 0.23% or 0.37% of the population becomes a rounding error.
We are on our own, there's only so much any country can do. Preppers will all be saying told you so.
> If there was or is a truly killer virus out there now, you think one bed per thousand will make any difference?
> It’d make a big difference to the extra 50% of patients we could provide with a bed.
That's the beauty of maths or statistics, 50% more beds.. wow... amazing... but doesn't have the same ring if you said 0.1% more of the population will have access to an intensive care bed. (Provided so many of the staff haven't caught the virus they can't actually run the hospital). 50% of very little, is still very little.
> Staffed by who exactly. Unfilled NHS nurse vacancies alone currently stand at over 40,000.
I imagine the mega-pandemic plans call for pulling every qualified medical profession off any non urgent work and putting them all in pandemic management, mobilising all armed forces medics and getting medical students and retired professionals in to do the more basic levels of care, along with training other people up to do the most basic levels of monitoring and care. The current understaffing of the NHS could be a rounding error on the scale of a serious pandemic.
Let’s hope we don’t find out. This coronavirus doesn’t have the signs of a mega pandemic to my non expert eye; but every new virus that appears is one more breeding ground for the next doomsday.
I once showed a group of emergency planning people from Trafford Council around the Chill Factor indoor slope we were finishing off and commissioning at the time. They were slightly interested in the 500kg of ammonia in the plantrooms, but really wanted a day out I think.
On first seeing the snow slope, one woman declared - “Wow, that’s incredible. This would make a fantastic temporary morgue. We could fit thousands in here”
I guess when a virus hasn't been in humans before there will always be speculation how nasty any future mutations could be. It probably has a vast range of potential outcomes after it's been mutating through humans for say a year. As you say, it just adds another one to a lost.
> With the current level of service demand, if a Spanish flu type event hit us (year long pandemic, 25% of the population effected), that would be the most likely result. Personally speaking, I don't think that's acceptable.
Quarter of the current UK population equates to approximately 16.5 million people.
If you use the same mortality rate as the 1918/19 Spanish Flu Pandemic, then you're looking at about 364000 people dying in the space of a few months.
There's no way the NHS could deal with that even with the extra Nurses and it's probably doubtful that all those people could be treated in the makeshift hospitals in Military bases, etc.
If the shit really hits the fan, then I reckon it's complete restriction of movement enforced by the Army and sort out the consequences once the Pandemic is over.
> 5 days, that's mental
> Now that's impressive .
> TWS
It takes longer than that for cement for the foundations and bricklaying to harden surely?
> I am sure our NGO's and military could throw up a very good size temporary hospital in a matter of days if they had to.......... it is their equivalent.
If there was an appropriate Secretary of State with intelligence and vision, then calling on the NHS as nominated in the Civil Contingencies Act, medical NGOs, Royal Engineers, RAMC, RLC, RAF Med, Nursing corps, CBRN cells, reservists of various types, we could do some pretty amazing things in a short timescale.
Now just give me a minute. Let me think. Secretary of State with intelligence and vision?
-
-
-
No. Sorry. I can't think of one.
> Now just give me a minute. Let me think. Secretary of State with intelligence and vision?
Anyone with any sense will know that the hard core decision making will be pretty much done before it gets to the likes of Patel, etc. and all they would be doing is authorising the recommended actions.
Anyway, as you've obviously decided to make it political, lets look at what Labour have to offer in the shape of the Shadow Home Secretary: Diane Abbott...
You'd also have the procrastinating Corbyn involved as PM. Can you honestly imagine him authorising any decisions that would involve whole scale military intervention in the everyday running of the NHS?
Having seen the quality of construction in China it will be rubble again in a month.
There will be a plan or operation sitting in a folder on shelf waiting to be actioned, regardless of which SoS, PM or political party holds office. It won't happen by magic, the disruption caused would be immense.
Those brexit stockpiles finally going to be useful.
> You'd also have the procrastinating Corbyn involved as PM. Can you honestly imagine him authorising any decisions that would involve whole scale military intervention in the everyday running of the NHS?
Yes.
What did he procrastinate about?
> > You'd also have the procrastinating Corbyn involved as PM. Can you honestly imagine him authorising any decisions that would involve whole scale military intervention in the everyday running of the NHS?
> Yes.
> What did he procrastinate about?
Are you kidding? He’s the only person in the country who still hasn’t made his mind up on Brexit.
> There will be a plan or operation sitting in a folder on shelf waiting to be actioned, regardless of which SoS, PM or political party holds office. It won't happen by magic, the disruption caused would be immense.
Are you sure Dominic won't have thrown it out or be plotting to sack the people who wrote it and know where it's filed?
> That's the beauty of maths or statistics, 50% more beds.. wow... amazing... but doesn't have the same ring if you said 0.1% more of the population will have access to an intensive care bed. (Provided so many of the staff haven't caught the virus they can't actually run the hospital). 50% of very little, is still very little.
How about 80,000 extra acute beds (as we had in 2000), 80,000 patients treated and cared for instead of freezing in a Nissan hut on some recently un-mothballed MOD site or simply left at home to recover, or not, and to further spread infection to those caring for them?
22 dead at a Manchester concert was significant so how you can write off 80,000 is beyond me.
> How about 80,000 extra acute beds (as we had in 2000), 80,000 patients treated and cared for instead of freezing in a Nissan hut on some recently un-mothballed MOD site or simply left at home to recover, or not, and to further spread infection to those caring for them?
Would you actually want them in the hospitals used by patients that haven't yet contracted the virus?
Might sound callous, but it maybe better to totally isolate them and military installations, etc. might well be the best option in the long run.
> Are you kidding? He’s the only person in the country who still hasn’t made his mind up on Brexit.
Are you telling me the Labour Party had no policy on brexit in their last manifesto?
> Would you actually want them in the hospitals used by patients that haven't yet contracted the virus?
Yes I'd want them in hospitals. It's where civilised people take their sick and injured.
> Might sound callous, but it maybe better to totally isolate them and military installations, etc. might well be the best option in the long run.
How about we just start issuing paramedics with bolt guns? After all, it'd save the NHS shitloads and we could all have a nice 1% tax cut.
Have you seen any pictures of the one they built in Beijing for the SARS virus outbreak? It's certainly not in use any more.
Bollocks to that-when the Chinese decide to do something they dont f*ck about.
And who will care for these 80,000? How many staff would you need in total? How much extra equipment? Etc..
I think I reality, it's all about containment, limit the spread for 6mths whilst a vaccine is worked on, limiting how much of the population is consider expendable.
If you think anywhere can cope, you are dreaming. All nations fund their healthcare, just enough. If it's as bad as the scaremongering goes; expect a 4% drop in global population over 2 years.
> Are you telling me the Labour Party had no policy on brexit in their last manifesto?
Who mentioned the Labour Party? I believe we were discussing Corbyn’s procrastination.
> And who will care for these 80,000? How many staff would you need in total? How much extra equipment? Etc..
Are you not reading these posts properly? Am I not making myself clear? (to be fair, it wouldn't be the first time). My whole point on this thread has been how decades of streamlining has left us not only with a more cash efficient NHS but also one lurching from winter crisis to winter crisis.
Who would look after these extra 80,000? Nobody now, but in 2000 those extra 80,000 beds was just business as usual. Go back to 1988 and England had 300,000 NHS beds available, now that figure stands at 140,000 despite the population being much older and burdened with far more chronic illnesses.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/hospital-beds
> All nations fund their healthcare, just enough.
Demonstrably false.
England 2.2 hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants
Japan 13.2 hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants
> 22 dead at a Manchester concert was significant so how you can write off 80,000 is beyond me.
In 2018;
Malaria killed over 400,000
Sepsis killed over 10 million
Aids still killed 770,000
Etc etc.. don't get me wrong it could be grim, but we are surrounded by folk dying from preventable illnesses... diabetes? Measles?
> > All nations fund their healthcare, just enough.
> Demonstrably false.
> England 2.2 hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants
> Japan 13.2 hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants
I wouldn't use the UK as a benchmark though. It's under funded, by an under taxed population. Plus, beds are a good measure, but it depends if folk recover at home sooner or remain in hospital and so on, the whole social care argument.
> Who mentioned the Labour Party? I believe we were discussing Corbyn’s procrastination.
That doesn't exist as the decision was made democratically at the party conference.
> Are you not reading these posts properly? Am I not making myself clear? (to be fair, it wouldn't be the first time). My whole point on this thread has been how decades of streamlining has left us not only with a more cash efficient NHS but also one lurching from winter crisis to winter crisis.
The we.... is the population who insist on only voting for tax cuts. You get what you pay for.
My argument is, it won't matter in a global pandemic. A relatively small proportion of extra beds. Better to focus on containment.
> That doesn't exist as the decision was made democratically at the party conference.
I believe red Len has made this decision on Labour's future?
10 more years of Boris it is. Is red Len really a tory?
Better than Sweden then (2.03 including phsychiatric care)
> Better than Sweden then (2.03 including phsychiatric care)
Or if we confined ourselves to looking at countries of comparable economic and population size: France with 6 per 1000 and Germany with 8 per 1000. Or perhaps Sweden having double the UK's number of doctors per capita means more patients can be safely treated at home.
> Or perhaps Sweden having double the UK's number of doctors per capita means more patients can be safely treated at home.
No home visits. But you can easily get a same day appointment. Less waiting, less complications, cured quicker etc.
> I believe red Len has made this decision on Labour's future?
Well you believe wrong
> 10 more years of Boris it is. Is red Len really a tory?
Ask the Tory billionaires who own the media and dictate who gets into No10.
> That doesn't exist as the decision was made democratically at the party conference.
and Corbyn cleverly/cynically distanced himself from that decision by declaring himself a neutral arbitrator.
His acolytes declared this as Corbyn being a great leader that would sagely look at all the facts and come up with a policy that would be truly magnificent and wondrous.
However, a lot of his core voters interpreted this as Corbyn as being a bit of a procrastinating idiot.
Cherry picking, you could have picked the USA (just above the UK) or Canada (just below) neither of which are particularly poor nor small. Or Japan which is top of the table and of similar(ish) wealth and size to the UK.
Clearly there's no obvious connection between political system, population and wealth and the number of beds, just the health care systems function differently.
> Might sound callous, but it maybe better to totally isolate those of us and our families and military installations, etc. might well be the best option in the long run.
clarified
In rural areas we can take Eyam as a model
> In rural areas we can take Eyam as a model
Probably too late. All those airport checks taking temperatures were pointless, it's just a question of waiting a week to see how many of those fleeing were infected.
It is risk versus inconvenience and cost. Does the world ban travel for a month to contain it, zero flights, passenger ferries, cruises etc.., to potentially save 4% of the population.
> Will it be a functioning hospital - or merely a quarantine pen?
Quite. The Chinese are pretty good at building these too.
> Are you kidding? He’s the only person in the country who still hasn’t made his mind up on Brexit.
Perhaps because he doesn't KNOW (as many of us claim to) whether it'll be a good or bad thing.
Everyone else claims to be able to predict the future, or that every good/bad thing that happens will be due to Brexit. I think those who say "we don't know" are the intelligent ones. From what I understand Corbyn would do what a majority wanted, but he doesn't claim to know what the outcome would be. Not the "leadership" we have grown used to, and because it is different many don't like it
> Probably too late. All those airport checks taking temperatures were pointless, it's just a question of waiting a week to see how many of those fleeing were infected.
> It is risk versus inconvenience and cost. Does the world ban travel for a month to contain it, zero flights, passenger ferries, cruises etc.., to potentially save 4% of the population.
A travel ban would make sense. Given the uncertainties and what we already know, it would be good risk management. But unfortunately there is no incentives for those ruling us to do the right thing.
Doctors have been arrested for 'spreading unhelpful rumours' about the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE7Iz7HLpYg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid...
This guy gives really good insights into 'the Chinese psyche' as it were - his videos are really worthwhile.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...