Government criminally irresponsible for putting hospital patients into care homes

I'm not a fan of the govt but EVERYONE was on board with this at the time, myself included. Off the back of Neil Ferguson's magic models, the message was clear - the hospital's WILL get swamped and need to be emptied pronto.

That was obviously a huge mistake in hindsight and was the pandemic in a nutshell. Once it was seeded in hospitals and care homes, it was done. The community stuff (supermarket traffic lights, stay at home orders, scotch eggs, tiers, closed playgrounds etc etc) was just useless and nasty pointlessness at that.
 
rockontommy said:
I'm not a fan of the govt but EVERYONE was on board with this at the time, myself included. Off the back of Neil Ferguson's magic models, the message was clear - the hospital's WILL get swamped and need to be emptied pronto.

That was obviously a huge mistake in hindsight and was the pandemic in a nutshell. Once it was seeded in hospitals and care homes, it was done. The community stuff (supermarket traffic lights, stay at home orders, scotch eggs, tiers, closed playgrounds etc etc) was just useless and nasty pointlessness at that.
Click to expand...
EVERYONE was not on board. It was obvious at the time and was called out as such. Anyway, it's not this board saying they were criminally irresponsible, it's the official report.
 
Wizaard said:
EVERYONE was not on board. It was obvious at the time and was called out as such. Anyway, it's not this board saying they were criminally irresponsible, it's the official report.
Click to expand...
Not arguing about the outcome Wiz - it was criminal negligence and I've argued such many times myself. However, I can tell you now for a fact that at that specific time, the message was loud and clear. Get people out of hospital toot sweet. That was all part of the "national effort" at that time. Perhaps you were were painting rainbows and banging pans around that time, I don't know. I was being paid overtime to discharge patients (not my usual job) from hospital as directed (quickly). Fortunately for my conscience only back to their homes but I can tell you for a fact that the edict was clear and came from on high, driven by the modelling and public clamour to 'not do an Italy'.
 
Wizaard said:
EVERYONE was not on board. It was obvious at the time and was called out as such. Anyway, it's not this board saying they were criminally irresponsible, it's the official report.
Click to expand...
The judgement doesn't have either of those two words in it; it's the OP who is claiming them to be criminally irresponsible. The actual wording from the summary is:

"In their judgment handed down today Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham found that the decisions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make and maintain a series of policies contained in documents issued on 17 and 19 March and 2 April 2020 were unlawful because the drafters of those documents failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission, which had been highlighted by (among others) Sir Patrick Vallance in a radio interview as early as 13 March. Non-symptomatic transmission would mean that one elderly patient moved from hospital to a care home could infect other residents before manifesting symptoms, or even without ever manifesting symptoms. The judges found that it was irrational for the DHSC not to have advised until mid-April 2020 that where an asymptomatic patient (other than one who had tested negative for COVID19) was admitted to a care home, he or she should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for 14 days."

And for the record the guidance was changed 1 month later.

I think what it shows (again) is that the NHS views old people as 'bed blockers' and will do anything within its power to get them out of the hospital bed. The original guidance reflects part of the over reaction and also part of the disdain old people are held in by hospital bed managers.

Yes it was a catastrophic decision but it wasn't what the OP states.

Edited to add; the over reaction is hindsight - at the time, I'm sure those advising ministers were looking at what was happening around the world and giving what they thought was the best advice.
 
Last edited:
rockontommy said:
I'm not a fan of the govt but EVERYONE was on board with this at the time, myself included. Off the back of Neil Ferguson's magic models, the message was clear - the hospital's WILL get swamped and need to be emptied pronto.

That was obviously a huge mistake in hindsight and was the pandemic in a nutshell. Once it was seeded in hospitals and care homes, it was done. The community stuff (supermarket traffic lights, stay at home orders, scotch eggs, tiers, closed playgrounds etc etc) was just useless and nasty pointlessness at that.
Click to expand...
Dont think so !
 
TSSeasider said:
I'm sure those advising ministers were looking at what was happening around the world and giving what they thought was the best advice.
Click to expand...
"It’s a Communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought".

"And then Italy did it. And we realised we could".

- Professor Neil Ferguson
 
The priest-caste (data scientists) proven wrong again and again.

If we don't sacrifice another 100 children today, the sun-god will devour us all!

If we don't shut down our entire society indefinitely, everyone will die!
 
Adams Kebab said:
Fuck all will come of it anyway, hopefully Matt Hancock’s book sales take the hit from it.
Click to expand...
Nobody wanted any of these govt actions AK. They are so angry the govt did what the rest of the idiot (non avftt) public was screaming for. Are you having that one AK? Is that how you recall things? 😂
 
rockontommy said:
I'm not a fan of the govt but EVERYONE was on board with this at the time, myself included. Off the back of Neil Ferguson's magic models, the message was clear - the hospital's WILL get swamped and need to be emptied pronto.

That was obviously a huge mistake in hindsight and was the pandemic in a nutshell. Once it was seeded in hospitals and care homes, it was done. The community stuff (supermarket traffic lights, stay at home orders, scotch eggs, tiers, closed playgrounds etc etc) was just useless and nasty pointlessness at that.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people who weren't on board, guess where they work?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I know a lot of people who weren't on board, guess where they work?
Click to expand...
Okay, most people. You catch my drift though. It's probably the only time in the pandemic that the vast, vast majority of people were pulling in the same direction. Since then, it's been the blame game and nasty finger pointing all the way. It was certainly a personal fork in the road for me and just following orders was out from that moment on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockontommy said:
Okay, most people. You catch my drift though. It's probably the only time in the pandemic that the vast, vast majority of people were pulling in the same direction. Since then, it's been the blame game and nasty finger pointing all the way.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree that most of the public went along with it and the beds were needed, which is what happens when you have an entire system with no spare capacity whatsoever because 'business principals = capacity is waste'.

In an alternate universe I'd hope the lesson has been learned that running public services with no spare capacity is madness, but in this universe it won't have been, because the people running the system are ** self serving idiots who preen themselves off presenting 'cost saving measures' while pulling in six figure salaries, it's not like they haven't had a warning every bloody winter, so the next time we'll just end up sending a load of vulnerable people in to a situation that poses huge risk to them again.

Bad decisions were made because bad decision were made previously, it's just a never ending cycle of incompetence from those who know the cost of everything and the value of nowt.
 
Hey, twojags, your ability to master the simple art of posting a comment on here certainly seems to lack credibility.

As for extreme, coming from a guy whose idea of extreme is having a bourbon cream rather than a custard cream with his mug of tea, I can understand why you might think that 😉
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I know a lot of people who weren't on board, guess where they work?
Click to expand...
Can't believe I missed an opportunity to bring up choreographed TikTok nurse dances here. Must try harder 😂

Anyway, today is a new day and so far nobody has mentioned pornography in the HoC, Keith having a beer or Angela Raynor's fanny which I find remarkable.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Yeah I agree that most of the public went along with it and the beds were needed, which is what happens when you have an entire system with no spare capacity whatsoever because 'business principals = capacity is waste'.

In an alternate universe I'd hope the lesson has been learned that running public services with no spare capacity is madness, but in this universe it won't have been, because the people running the system are ** self serving idiots who preen themselves off presenting 'cost saving measures' while pulling in six figure salaries, it's not like they haven't had a warning every bloody winter, so the next time we'll just end up sending a load of vulnerable people in to a situation that poses huge risk to them again.

Bad decisions were made because bad decision were made previously, it's just a never ending cycle of incompetence from those who know the cost of everything and the value of nowt.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you say here, especially the last paragraph.

I think the political decision around 2000 to minimise the number of beds in hospitals and have people treated as close to their homes as possible (and ideally in their own homes) because it would mean less 'spare capacity' in hospitals came home to roost - at the expense of thousands of old people.
 
Recidivist3 said:
Hey, twojags, your ability to master the simple art of posting a comment on here certainly seems to lack credibility.

As for extreme, coming from a guy whose idea of extreme is having a bourbon cream rather than a custard cream with his mug of tea, I can understand why you might think that 😉
Click to expand...
Life on the edge..
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
".....which is what happens when you have an entire system with no spare capacity whatsoever because 'business principals = capacity is waste'.

Bad decisions were made because bad decision were made previously, it's just a never ending cycle of incompetence from those who know the cost of everything and the value of nowt.
Click to expand...
Surplus capacity budgeting for public infrastructure is both sensible and, in the long term, fully justified. Back in the day, when I was in the MoD I remember RAF junior ranks being used to drive coaches to move staff around the country. A colleague bemoaned the waste and quoted Hestletine's book about waste in the public sector. But surplus capacity budgeting is the price that a civilised society must pay to manage risk. Others on here will recall Blackpool Council continuing to operate with conductors on the buses, long after other authorities had dispensed with them. It was because of the extra demand in the summer for conductors doubling up on the trams.

As for your final point about bad decisions being made as a consequence of previous decisions being bad...I don't accept that. The fact is that the Tory Government has been taken over by an incompetent leader, who's power base depends on having incompetent people around him.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
As for your final point about bad decisions being made as a consequence of previous decisions being bad...I don't accept that. The fact is that the Tory Government has been taken over by an incompetent leader, who's power base depends on having incompetent people around him.
Click to expand...
But the decisions to run without capacity go back to Blair and beyond.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
But the decisions to run without capacity go back to Blair and beyond.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. They go back to Denis Healey (maybe before) and the introduction of annual cash limits on Supply budgets. Also - not a political point but a constitutional one - in order to protect Parliamentary authority over public revenues and expenditure we have this debilitating requirement to vote Government funding every year. This means that for all but a very few Capital budgets, funding for even ongoing running costs has to be bid for each year and surrendered at the end of the financial year. I would allow far greater flexibility by facilitating an underpinning a minimum voted Supply for the whole of a Government's 5 year tenure. That would provide security of planning beyond the rolling three year planning cycle currently operated.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Oh yes. They go back to Denis Healey (maybe before) and the introduction of annual cash limits on Supply budgets. Also - not a political point but a constitutional one - in order to protect Parliamentary authority over public revenues and expenditure we have this debilitating requirement to vote Government funding every year. This means that for all but a very few Capital budgets, funding for even ongoing running costs has to be bid for each year and surrendered at the end of the financial year. I would allow far greater flexibility by facilitating an underpinning a minimum voted Supply for the whole of a Government's 5 year tenure. That would provide security of planning beyond the rolling three year planning cycle currently operated.
Click to expand...
You've gone way beyond my knowledge there but interesting stuff 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top