Coronavirus: social, economic and other changes as a result of the pandemic

[teamsaint]

Whatever system is thought up/implemented will be limited by the number of GPs available(or rather not) to use it and how many of them are full-time. My GP surgery has quite a list of names on the door but most of them are working 2 or 3 days a week, not full time, which increases waiting times for appointments. Recruitment has been a major problem for something like 5 years now, with the very few potential candidates available apparently(so I've been told) preferring to work in the nearby city rather than this thriving market town, so when someone leaves it increases the workload for the rest for much longer than is desirable.
The shortage of GPs, partly due to age profile meaning that significant numbers have left the system within a relatively short space of time, has been known about for a long time, but no efforts have been made to address it, either by preventing the causes of personnel leaving the profession or by ensuring training and recruitment of replacements.

I should think that one of the reasons that so many GPs work 2/3 days a week is that they can afford to. We have pretty much the best rewarded doctors in Europe.
A pay freeze for GPs and major increase in medical training is needed, but the BMA won’t like it, and any improvement is years away.
The judicious use of technology could help in a number of ways, because the system was already pretty much a shambles.

[oddoneout]

I should think that one of the reasons that so many GPs work 2/3 days a week is that they can afford to. We have pretty much the best rewarded doctors in Europe.
A pay freeze for GPs and major increase in medical training is needed, but the BMA won’t like it, and any improvement is years away.
The judicious use of technology could help in a number of ways, because the system was already pretty much a shambles.

Given what is expected of so many of them I would hope they are well paid, but for many that isn't the only reason they do the job and won't help if the pressures of trying to reconcile political directives and the care their patients actually need become too great. Working part-time is also way for women with childcare responsibilities to continue in the medical profession until they can either go full-time or return to their original specialism.

[teamsaint]

Given what is expected of so many of them I would hope they are well paid, but for many that isn't the only reason they do the job and won't help if the pressures of trying to reconcile political directives and the care their patients actually need become too great. Working part-time is also way for women with childcare responsibilities to continue in the medical profession until they can either go full-time or return to their original specialism.

I think the real reason that people go into medicine is for the pay and the status, in the main.
Fair enough.That is how the world turns.

[Dave2002]

I think the real reason that people go into medicine is for the pay and the status, in the main.
Fair enough.That is how the world turns.

Actually I disagee with you. It is a reason, but depending on what part of medicine one works in, there are at least two other reasons, including: a genuine interest in helping people, an interest in science, technological and other challenges. psychological challenges, etc. It doesn't follow that everyone goes in because of a passionate interest in helping people - some may go in and do lab work and not see many people, but nevertheless know that they are making a contribution. Medicine is a very wide field, though I suspect that you meant to include consultants and surgeons, even GPs, rather than ward nurses and assistants, some of whom are very caring, some do a great job, and they don't all get paid very much at all.

However, there may be some of the higher paid members of the profession who spend some of their time on the golf course. Perhaps if they are very good at what they do, and are available when really needed, that's not completely unreasonable. I'm not finger pointing.

[oddoneout]

I think the real reason that people go into medicine is for the pay and the status, in the main.
Fair enough.That is how the world turns.

Like Dave I would have to disagree with that generalisation, not least because priority given to pay and status over other considerations is different between men and women. The knockbacks to pay and status can be significant after career breaks, which women are more likely to take.

[teamsaint]

Cut pay for doctors pay to average graduate salary, and the queue for med school wouldn’t be terribly long.
No shame in wanting to go into well paid profession, just becauseit is well paid. Plenty of that in all occupations.

[teamsaint]

Actually I disagee with you. It is a reason, but depending on what part of medicine one works in, there are at least two other reasons, including: a genuine interest in helping people, an interest in science, technological and other challenges. psychological challenges, etc. It doesn't follow that everyone goes in because of a passionate interest in helping people - some may go in and do lab work and not see many people, but nevertheless know that they are making a contribution. Medicine is a very wide field, though I suspect that you meant to include consultants and surgeons, even GPs, rather than ward nurses and assistants, some of whom are very caring, some do a great job, and they don't all get paid very much at all.

However, there may be some of the higher paid members of the profession who spend some of their time on the golf course. Perhaps if they are very good at what they do, and are available when really needed, that's not completely unreasonable. I'm not finger pointing.

Yes, it was of course GPs, consultants etc I was talking about. No doubt many of them earn their money. And we do, I suspect need to review the pay and conditions for junior doctors, who are usually really are in the front line.

[Frances_iom]

Government by decree has now become the norm - BJ (or DC acting thru his puppit) is acting as though he is Trump - what has happened to Parliament.

[LMcD]

Government by decree has now become the norm - BJ (or DC acting thru his puppit) is acting as though he is Trump - what has happened to Parliament.

I think the word you're looking for is 'sidelined'. Rule By Late-Night Tweet is SO much more efficient, old chap!

[Cockney Sparrow]

The politics of it:
I suppose the assumption is that with a majority of 80, there was no point in even putting up a fight for continued sitting as yes, indeed, we know Cummings/Johnson very much prefer Parliament not sitting.

Its a very cynical** thought that, given the above, its better to let the government carry on making its mistakes alone and not be part of it. I'm struggling to think of an instance where the Labour/ScotNat opposition made any difference to Cummings/Johnson. The impact on their "policies" has been Huwawei (Tory backbench revolt) and Rashford School Meals (social/media storm). There may be others but basically this administration have the hide of a Rhinocerous and a shameless disregard for decency, our "Unwritten Constitution" and other norms in government.

**Cynical, given that decisions have impacts on lives lost from Covid 19, lives lost from the displacement of services pre-empted by treating the virus, and the impact of the lockdown on everyone's daily lives in terms of health, economy and education.

Dealing with Covid 19:
This morning a SAGE academic (School of Tropical Medicine IIRC) on Today R4 said that England was not in the same position of the devolved Nations - we will not succeed with an elimination strategy, because our numbers are at too high a level. No doubt lots of reasons - more high density population areas, more connectivity internationally, a higher proportion of idiots feeling that limitations on behaviour can be ignored etc etc. Maybe we started with just too high a level of infectivity (sorry, no time to look up the data).
What he did say is that to pursue an elimination strategy in England, we would need a full lockdown again.

I don't see how our economy and society can sustain that again. The lockdown was to gain time to prepare to cope with the virus, find treatment options pending a vaccine and find out other ways of mitigating the spread and damage - including properly protecting care homes and the vulnerable. (Because we were so badly prepared for a pandemic).

If a full lockdown is ruled out, then there won't be certainty, there will be short notice changes, and impositions and restriction. We all want certainty, but it seems there can only be a flexible response, for the foreseeable future. I just wish I had more confidence in the government charged with preparing for the next year, and their decision making.

[eighthobstruction]

The politics of it:
I suppose the assumption is that with a majority of 80, there was no point in even putting up a fight for continued sitting as yes, indeed, we know Cummings/Johnson very much prefer Parliament not sitting.

Its a very cynical** thought that, given the above, its better to let the government carry on making its mistakes alone and not be part of it. I'm struggling to think of an instance where the Labour/ScotNat opposition made any difference to Cummings/Johnson. The impact on their "policies" has been Huwawei (Tory backbench revolt) and Rashford School Meals (social/media storm). There may be others but basically this administration have the hide of a Rhinocerous and a shameless disregard for decency, our "Unwritten Constitution" and other norms in government.

**Cynical, given that decisions have impacts on lives lost from Covid 19, lives lost from the displacement of services pre-empted by treating the virus, and the impact of the lockdown on everyone's daily lives in terms of health, economy and education.

Dealing with Covid 19:
This morning a SAGE academic (School of Tropical Medicine IIRC) on Today R4 said that England was not in the same position of the devolved Nations - we will not succeed with an elimination strategy, because our numbers are at too high a level. No doubt lots of reasons - more high density population areas, more connectivity internationally, a higher proportion of idiots feeling that limitations on behaviour can be ignored etc etc. Maybe we started with just too high a level of infectivity (sorry, no time to look up the data).
What he did say is that to pursue an elimination strategy in England, we would need a full lockdown again.

I don't see how our economy and society can sustain that again. The lockdown was to gain time to prepare to cope with the virus, find treatment options pending a vaccine and find out other ways of mitigating the spread and damage - including properly protecting care homes and the vulnerable. (Because we were so badly prepared for a pandemic).

If a full lockdown is ruled out, then there won't be certainty, there will be short notice changes, and impositions and restriction. We all want certainty, but it seems there can only be a flexible response, for the foreseeable future. I just wish I had more confidence in the government charged with preparing for the next year, and their decision making.

....well said....perceptive....

[oddoneout]

To me, the question of which route to use in the longer term/ongoing management issues of CV-19 is somewhat academic to say the least, given that the weak(and boy, how weak...) link is the lack of an administration fit, in any sense of the word, to implement whatever route is chosen, not least because it has systematically run down the capability of local government which is best placed to manage much of what is needed.
If one regards local spikes and local lockdowns as being somewhat similar to natural disasters such as flooding then, as in that case, such measures need not have quite the major impact on the rest of the country that a blanket shutdown would have. Unfortunately that doesn't give me any comfort since, again, the current administration has shown itself completely unable to deal with natural disasters.Indeed there are many poor folk who hadn't had their flood related housing difficulties addressed before they were expected to lockdown.
I well remember the days of County Emergency Planning exercises when council officials and local voluntary groups worked through how to deal with such things as floods,winter weather, major accidents etc. Local knowledge and local action liaised with other agencies such as the army where appropriate to make best use of resources available, and local communities were sometimes involved as well to provide 'casualties' etc. It was also a good way of testing out new ideas and equipment - there was a notable redface occurrence when there was a push to use mobile phones instead of radios, despite the very well known lack of reception for mobiles at that time, particularly in the area of the exercise. Better to find out then than when trying to manage a major incident.

[teamsaint]

The latest threat to lock down over 50's looks a lot like a data mining exercise in the making to me.

Well they'll get nothing off me voluntarily, and I won't be being locked down again.

This latest suggested course of (in) action is absolute nonsense.

We really need to be starting to make a stand ( too late) on the way any kind of government accountability has been apparently sidelined.

TS , aged 58 1/2

[Bryn]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/02/illness-obesity-racism-who-gets-blamed-for-our-crises-the-poor-of-course?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR1jnKYny3tzT8qx6m8DYdcsZ-lGAC45FiTkxnp50lNtH3q5tJHVkhVbMyc

[LMcD]

At least one restaurant has reported an increase in bookings Mon-Wed with a corresponding drop in weekend bookings. Who saw THAT coming?