It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NHS Weakest Coronavirus patients will be denied lifesaving care

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23


My daughter got a small scholarship for Art, she plans on working in the field doing illustrations for medical devices, or for educational illustrations etc.




but they're not critical like how having enough medical personnel is critical.

Art is not just painting pretty pictures. How many people learned CPR on a dummy? I know I did. Guess what, an artist created that. An artist created a lot of the graphics and drawings in medical literature and training guides. An artist might create a better face mask through design.




posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

How would you like to be that person triaged into no care who is struggling to breathe, conscious that they are gasping and can't breathe, and no one does anything for you, not even to ease those last hours?

All good, huh?

That's kind of what it sounds like they're talking about. I get the need to prioritize resources to save those who can be saved, but at some point, you have to provide comfort care too or else it becomes plain inhumane.


edit on 27-2-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




How would you like to be that person triaged into no care who is struggling to breathe, conscious that they are gasping and can't breathe, and no one does anything for you, not even to ease those last hours?

But they will receive care just not intensive care , they would also be quarantined.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Also remember that this virus only seems to kill or severly effect very young kids and very elderly or sickly people the worst.

Not sure where you got that. It seems to not affect young kids much at all (ZERO deaths 0-9 yr olds), and risk is more like the regular flu (0.2%) up to 49, then it starts going up slowly - highest risk is 70+...



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


My body still has a strong innate immunity, that actually causes my reaction to the flu vaccine. So, maybe with this virus, a vaccine would be bad for kids, stimulating their immune system might actually make them more susceptible to overreactions.

Pretty much the same here. I've never had a flu shot, and never needed one. The worst flu I ever had made me grouchy(er) for three days. I can't even remember what year that was... early 2000s? Maybe?

I am honestly wondering if the constant flu shots and immunizations in adults lately isn't at least partly responsible. The immune system is like a muscle: use it or lose it. In other words, I see two possible outcomes if I catch a bad case of the darn thing:
  • I grouch for a few days, run a fever, eat an onion, go to bed, cover up, let my fever run, and wake up well but dehydrated. Just like any other mean bug.

  • The fact I am older will get me, in which case I'll have led a fuller life than the vast majority of people had the chance to.
In either case, no hospital is needed. The weaker generation can fill up the hospital beds.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I don't think there's a country on this earth that will be able to give 'intensive care' to every person who catches it if it reaches pandemic levels.

The UK is by no means exclusive in this.

I am sure the care provided by the NHS won't be significantly worse than the care provided by the healthcare systems of other comparable nations.....it probably won't be significantly better as well.

This is one person's opinion, other 'experts' differ in their assessment.....let's hope we don't find out who is right.

Just like every other nation on earth there are those who seek to score political points and personal advantage from any given situation.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Frankly, I find it alarming that so many seem to think it's okay to not treat old people.

My view is you try to help everyone to the best of your ability, not based on who is more likely to live.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

when everybody gets sick, and everybody goes to the hospital, the whole thing breaks down. we have 942,000 hospital beds in the usa, how long, how many people do you think it would take to overrun every hospital in the USA? hint, not long. The worst thing you can do would be go to a hospital, stick it out at home, recover or die at home, not in some hospital or some quarantine camp.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: ketsuko

Frankly, I find it alarming that so many seem to think it's okay to not treat old people.

My view is you try to help everyone to the best of your ability, not based on who is more likely to live.


There is a limit to how many people that can be treated in a crisis. They have to treat those with the best likely outcome from treatment.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

don't care I don't agree in any way with prioritizing based on age.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: ScepticScot

don't care I don't agree in any way with prioritizing based on age.


Not prioritizing means more people die.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: ScepticScot

don't care I don't agree in any way with prioritizing based on age.


At some point, if you only have two beds and can only treat one person are you going to
treat someone that is 82 or a 22 year old?



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

You treat both. You find another bed.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn




Just like every other nation on earth there are those who seek to score political points and personal advantage from any given situation.

That's probably what this story is really about.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: JAGStorm

You treat both. You find another bed.


Wishful thinking at best.
If you have thousands and thousands of people sick at one time, and only so much medical staff, only so much room...
Sometimes you just can't.

Let's take your house for example. Imagine if a thousand people show up wanting to eat, It is very easy for me to say, Just find another plate and feed them all. Reality says it's not possible. It's already happened in China. If we get if bad here, it will happen here too.

www.npr.org...



On Jan. 25, two days after the city entered lockdown, the hospital sent him home. His niece said they explained that his bed was needed to treat COVID-19 patients.


edit on 27-2-2020 by JAGStorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

except that isn't likely to happen. And even if hospitals run out of beds, they will arrange to field hospitals if they have to. You don't leave people to die in the USA.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: JAGStorm

You don't leave people to die in the USA.


I just FELL OVER IN MY CHAIR

Ever heard of the V---FRICKEN A, VA for short.
Tell me they don't just leave people to die...



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Most people do not realize how little spare capacity exists in ANY healthcare system.

In a full out pandemic with over capacity hospitals Triage will be needed.

I'm trained for MCI Triage and you literally use an algorithm to make life or death calls as you go person to person. The principal is to save as many as you can vs throwing everything at one marginal patient. The same would apply for hospitals and in a full on pandemic, you may not even get the 'we will make him comfortable" as there will be nothing to give



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: ScepticScot

don't care I don't agree in any way with prioritizing based on age.


At some point, if you only have two beds and can only treat one person are you going to
treat someone that is 82 or a 22 year old?



Well I have two beds in your scenario so why can't I treat both?

But on a serious note, more information is needed before you could choose. If the 22 year old had other co morbities like un-witnessed arrest etc, that would factor in



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

They sure as hell aren't supposed to, are they? And it's not because of lack of resources either. It's because of useless govt. bureaucracy as usual.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join