|
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Expatrick
(Post 12500476)
No EU Country is listed by the WHO as having a TB incidence rate of ≥ 150 / 100,000.
Some non EU Countries that have a rate ≥ 150/100,000 include India (211), Pakistan (268), Bangladesh (221), Nigeria (219), Guinea Bissau (374) and Phillipines (554). In total 55 countries feature a rate ≥ 150/100,000 - this total includes some "eastern" Eastern Countries (non EU, not qualifying for FOM & whose inhabitants require visas and possibly screening). These include Armenia (44/100,000), Azerbaijan (66), Belarus (52), Georgia (92), Kazakhstan (67) & Russia (66). Eastern European EU members check out out as follows Hungary (9), Czechia (5), Poland (18), Bulgaria (27) and Latvia (37). Only Romania has a rate greater than 40 / 100,000. For comparison, France (8), Germany (8), Austria (8), UK (10) & non EU Switzerland (8). Demographic of London Borough of Ealing = Non white: 47%, British / Irish white 37%, non British/Irish white: 16%. According to the Lancet UK TV rates have declined significantly in the last 5 years. Sources: Public Health England, NHS, gov.uk, Ealing Borough Council, The Lancet. When i was working in nhs comissioning about 7-8 years ago, FOR THE UK, EALING and WEST LONDON WAS A TB HOTSPOT. They were provided with extra mobile x-ray units and the anomaly was fully understood and not an issue for the NHS. As public health monitor confirmed in 2015, still an issue. That it is caused mainly by eastern europeans isnt a matter of prejudice but of fact, and wirthy of extra minitoring of those populations TO KEEP THEM HEALTHY in the same way that afro caribbean people have all the sickle cell anaemia. https://phm-monitor.com/tb-rates-in-...ing-countries/ Heres what ealing says about it. https://www.ealingcvs.org.uk/health/.../tuberculosis/ |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Oh - and yes - in southall its the indian migrants, in ealing its the poles and other eastern europeans, my depts patch included ealing not southall. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Are you also aware of the scandal of treatments being sold abroad? Like most antibiotics, you feel better fast, problem is tb is difficult to eradicate and is getting more resistant. People are often on antibiotics for 6 months to cure it but feel better after a few weeks. If you stop taking the tablets you get ill again in a month and make the bug more resistant. A few ‘clever’ people have discovered you can sell the exotic antibiotics for lots abroad, in the early days a few patients just sold them ‘at home’ but then an industry developed. Granny visits ealing on holiday, with tb, gets diagnosed and gets drugs which the kids post abroad sonetimes for granny [fraud] or sometimes to sell [also fraud]. Theres a solution applied now, when granny doesnt appear for a checkup, the drugs are stopped, she later appears but is told to take her tablets at the pharmacy daily, which if course she doesnt... |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by uk_grenada
(Post 12500481)
You realise that apart from talking ill informed rubbish, you are potentially harming thise at risk. Suggest you take that up with the sources I have quoted. I have not denied that Ealing is (among others) a TB hotspot.When i was working in nhs comissioning about 7-8 years ago, FOR THE UK, EALING and WEST LONDON WAS A TB HOTSPOT. What I find interesting is that of all the challenges facing the NHS (Cancers, obesity, type 2 diabetes, tobacco & alcohol related illnesses) you chose to focus on TB (5137 cases in England in 2017) and its alleged spread solely by Eastern Europeans - easy target of course. ​​​ |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Expatrick
(Post 12500488)
Suggest you take that up with the sources I have quoted.
I have not denied that Ealing is (among others) a TB hotspot. What I find interesting is that of all the challenges facing the NHS (Cancers, obesity, type 2 diabetes, tobacco & alcohol related illnesses) you chose to focus on TB (5137 cases in England in 2017) and its alleged spread solely by Eastern Europeans - easy target of course. ​​​ Firstly why would any of those references you made care about uk public health improvement? Secondly easy target my arse, i write as i find - you really need to realise that it is by the analysis of statistical health anomalies that important progress is made in understanding, but more importantly in ensuring that people actually receive treatment in a timely and effective [add word cost if you like] manner. Did you not realise i was pointing out how good it was that this treatment is available to those denied it in their birth country. anyhow - listening off. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
From Ealing CVS -
TB is a particular problem in Ealing, which actually has a higher rate of infection than Mali. In 2013, there were 63 cases per 100,000 people in Ealing, according to Public Health England, while the World Health Organisation reveals that Mali had 60 cases per 100,000 in the same year. Southall has the highest rates of TB in the borough, with 143.2 sufferers for every 100,000 people between 2011 and 2013. Ealing Clinical Commissioning Group says TB is more common among people from high-prevalence countries, like India, where many Southall residents originate. Southall also suffers from high levels of deprivation and overcrowding. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
The NHS is a mixed bag. It has some wonderful pros and some cons
Pros: - No one will go bankrupt from a medical issue. - Generally good level of treatment - People might be more apt to be entrepreneurial, take risks, start a business, if they're not tied to their company's insurance through a mainstream job. Cons: - NICE sets the amount a life is worth per year. Something like 20-30,000 pounds. - Postcode lottery. Places with high population density (at least used to) get poorer care/longer waits. - Yielding personal freedom to the state. The state "owns" you from cradle to grave. Example; Alfie Evans. All part of the nanny-statism that I abhor. - It will consume whatever resources you put into it. People using ambulances like taxis. Weekend drunks and sporting injuries. I know these things because I watched the reality documentary series "Casualty", where you used to "spot the accident" before it happened. I'm still traumatized decades later by the policewoman-who-got-toxic-shock-from-her-tampon episode. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Octang Frye
(Post 12500719)
- NICE sets the amount a life is worth per year. Something like 20-30,000 pounds.
- Postcode lottery. Places with high population density (at least used to) get poorer care/longer waits. - It will consume whatever resources you put into it. People using ambulances like taxis. Weekend drunks and sporting injuries. It would be nice to give a pro for US health systems to balance the argument. But I'm struggling. Cleaner? No, hospital-acquired infections are roughly double that of the NHS. Quality? Maybe, maybe not. Fast? Spent 9 hours in ER once because there was only one specialist covering 3 big hospitals that day. Another time 3 hours when they "lost" me during shift change. Better food? Nope - Swindon Great Western won awards for its catering; one hospital here got a "B" health rating, and serves dire, unhealthy processed junk food (and some mouldy apples). More staff? Yes, for billing probably, but fewer medical staff than required in the UK in places like (N)ICU. Better salary for staff? YES! We found one! But you'll be shafted for decent shifts unless you're buddies with the coordinator, and they'll cancel you at a moment's notice, and extort you equally when they're short. /rant |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Octang Frye
(Post 12500719)
I'm still traumatized decades later by the policewoman-who-got-toxic-shock-from-her-tampon episode.
|
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Octang Frye
(Post 12500719)
- Yielding personal freedom to the state. The state "owns" you from cradle to grave. Example; Alfie Evans.
|
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Anian
(Post 12501093)
That's just bollocks. The state has a duty of care for the PATIENT, not whatever hairbrained scheme the parents of a patient have.
|
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 12501100)
Yes, damn those pesky health professionals trying to do the best for a terminally sick patient. How dare they.
You want to be looked after and nannied by the state. You trust them without question. I don't. Who's child is it? They physically prevented the parents from taking their child - however dim the chances of success - and that is completely wrong. The doctors were wrong and wrong again. He'd be dead minutes after removing life support. Kid goes on five more days. Remember Ashya King, whose parents "kidnapped" him and took him for treatment in Europe? Yes, he's completely cleared of cancer. The British doctors did not know best. You know the story of Lorenzo's oil? Doctors do not always know best. Science has orthodoxy and many elements of religion. People just go along without questioning. The ultimate thing is, if the kid was dying anyway, what harm did it do for them to either take their child home to die, or fly him to Italy? The state physically prevented the parents from taking custody of their child. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Octang Frye
(Post 12501197)
Who's child is it? They physically prevented the parents from taking their child - however dim the chances of success - and that is completely wrong.
The doctors were wrong and wrong again. He'd be dead minutes after removing life support. Kid goes on five more days. Remember Ashya King, whose parents "kidnapped" him and took him for treatment in Europe? Yes, he's completely cleared of cancer. Anyway, I don't see how you can rationally reject the NHS based on an ethical dilemma like that. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12501206)
Hmm, I don't think it's as clear cut as that. The independent report on that says that proton therapy rather than "conventional radiotherapy" reduced his chances of survival by 30%. Should a parent be able to make such a decision for a minor?
Anyway, I don't see how you can rationally reject the NHS based on an ethical dilemma like that. |
Re: NHS - very impressed
Originally Posted by Octang Frye
(Post 12500719)
I'm still traumatized decades later by the policewoman-who-got-toxic-shock-from-her-tampon episode.
Why are you 'still traumatized decades later by the policewoman-who-got-toxic-shock-from-her-tampon episode'? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:28 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.