Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I didn?t realise we were all being rated.... Perhaps you?d like to share your ratings...


ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> tomskip Wrote:

> > Frankito Wrote:

> > ----------------

> >> Crystal Palace...

>

> > So very witty and so helpful.

>

> Certainly doesn't score high on any co-operative

> principle rating.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principl

> e

You seem to envisage some kind of step function relating time spent talking together and infection risk.


As do 'the scientists'. The longer you are in contact with someone who is infected, the higher the chance that they will pass the infection to you - talking with someone means that you and they are breathing at each other - and probably not maintaining a 2 metre gap. If you are inside the risk is increased, if you are both wearing masks decreased. The rule of thumb is that conversations of under 10 minutes duration have an acceptable risk, over, less so.


If your contact is outside then the risk is much reduced, as the virus intensity will be dissipated - that is why we are encouraged to keep windows open if meeting people inside, to mimic external conditions (air conditioning actually makes things worse, however). In the summer, sunlight also acts to attenuate the viral effect.

We could just pause a moment and go - this is a bug with a roughly 99.96% survival rate, that is unpleasant but which like many other bugs causes harm.


There is nothing wrong with exercising a little bit of common sense, but we've lost it completely over COVID. We're running scared, and we're destroying our economy and society for something that will have negigible if any impact on the overwhelming number of people it touches. The actual number of people dying only from COVID is tiny and if you look closely at the DH announcements, its clear usually almost all of those who die had significant pre-existing health conditions - COVID was merely one other thing.


Some people will always be at risk of something - I'm sorry, but thats the reality of the world we live in. I'm afraid we need to get on with life, not live scared of something that for most of us is harmless.


If you feel this is grim, then I'd point out we do this every year by imposing a risk based decision on all manner of illnesses and viruses, and the population at risk from them. We accept annual fatalities every year from flu, pneumonia and other illnesses, yet accept this as part of life. COVID isn't nice, but its no reason to destroy our economy and way of life. We need to get on with life, not live in fear.


This Spectator blog sums up how I feel - traffic lanes, not traffic lights. Let people choose themselves what they want to do, and let them live their lives appropriately. https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-covid-tiers-cant-go-soon-enough/


Having spoken to plenty of people recently, all of whom myself included have followed the rules, there is growing fatigue among many about the draining impact of these regulations that make seemingly little difference. We're tired of ever changing goalposts, of not being able to see people inside, of elderly relatives who are dying in distress and loneliness because to 'protect them' we've been forced to abandon them.


The utter inhumanity and pure evil of some of what is being done here appals me. We're taking decisions on the basis that we must only protect life, without asking those at risk what they want - hearing stories of friends whose grandparents are confused and feel they've been abandoned and don't understand why they cannot be visited is heartbreaking.

There were about nine or so families on Friday morning (young, wealthy-looking) in the Dulwich playpark despite there being signs saying it was closed. It is ironic because they look precisely the type to get their kiddies to draw rainbows to hang in their front windows and to clap for the NHS. I left a message for the parky (who has a much more elevated title)!

I agree with some thigns you say but point out that is the corollary of unchecked Covid - the impact on the NHS and other public services - that is driving the shutdown.

An answer would be for everyone (pro or anti) to write to their MP asking that taxes and NI be raised to fund a better-equipped and resourced NHS.

I'll hold your beer....

Its all well and good saying we need to pay more taxes for COVID, but where is the tax revenue coming from? I took flak for this on this very forum back in April making this point.


We can lock down for as long as we like, but if we destroy private industry in the process, we won't have the means to fund an NHS that we want in the medium term. Private industry needs to be given as much ability as possible to work, because without it, the tax revenues won't exist.

its clear usually almost all of those who die had significant pre-existing health conditions


But you must note that many of those 're-existing conditions' were not in themselves imminently, or at all, life threatening. People can live many years with diabetes, or high blood pressure, or with asthma; and many other conditions, even where eventually fatal, could still have been 'lived with' for many years. Indeed there are few people over 70 (I'm one) who do not have 'pre-existing conditions' - and still will happily live (fingers crossed!) for a further 10 or 15 years.


Some are using the pre-existing conditions mantra as a get out of jail free card - but it's not. The trick is to look at excess deaths over 'average' - and these are a clear and positive number.


Current stats for excess death https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its all well and good saying we need to pay more

> taxes for COVID, but where is the tax revenue

> coming from? I took flak for this on this very

> forum back in April making this point.

>

> We can lock down for as long as we like, but if we

> destroy private industry in the process, we won't

> have the means to fund an NHS that we want in the

> medium term. Private industry needs to be given as

> much ability as possible to work, because without

> it, the tax revenues won't exist.


Silicon Valley and it's high tech mates as well as companies like Peloton are doing very well thank you.


We all use them rather than walking to Top Shop to buy a hat but how do you tax them


Oh yes - and many of us can work from home because work has been shifted from workplaces to places like Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure.

So in other words you think we can tax the living daylights out of the online high street and thats all thats needed? Thats a very 'optimistic' approach that will end in tears.


If you want a world class NHS then you need to open the economy up - every day you delay is making it harder and harder to recover from this self-inflicted disaster.

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So in other words you think we can tax the living

> daylights out of the online high street and thats

> all thats needed? Thats a very 'optimistic'

> approach that will end in tears.

>

> If you want a world class NHS then you need to

> open the economy up - every day you delay is

> making it harder and harder to recover from this

> self-inflicted disaster.


I'm not supplying answers - just suggesting that things have changed and they won't change back.


Our IT teams spent the last few years moving things to the cloud - it was just coincidence that just as we got to the point we could work remotely we had to work remotely. I assume (as is usually the case) other companies are doing exactly the same (by the way this isn't brilliant for me as a legacy network guy - but I'll be retired in 10 years)

Companies save on corporate rental - they didn't think about the support industries like hospitality.


I think that you'll find, over time, that this sorts itself out (there will certainly be casualties and hardship before it does) - hospitality will realign to where workers now are - that may mean more distributed sites (and more distribution, come to that) - but e.g. in ED lunchtime trade may move (grow) from yummie mummies to home-office workers. And rather than grabbing a drink in town before coming home, now it'll be drinks locally. And possibly starting earlier/ going on later as commuting time becomes drinking time.


As I said, there will be casualties, but the model will eventually just be seen as flexing. You may even get more inner city living, and not just working, as office blocks get changed to high(er)-end apartments.


Short-term it won't be nice - long(er) term it could get better.

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There were about nine or so families on Friday

> morning (young, wealthy-looking) in the Dulwich

> playpark despite there being signs saying it was

> closed. It is ironic because they look precisely

> the type to get their kiddies to draw rainbows to

> hang in their front windows and to clap for the

> NHS. I left a message for the parky (who has a

> much more elevated title)!



I don't think the playparks are closed. The stickers on the gate (if that's what you mean) have been up (and not taken down) since the first lockdown. Did the parkie reply saying the playpark WAS supposed to be closed?

Jimlad, you just don't understand what the problem really is do you? We have 9 million people over the age of 70 in the UK. 1 in 20 of those who get covid, die (according to available data so far). Now let's see how that scales up to half that age group getting infected. That is potentially at least 400k deaths. Now add the many more that need ICU treatment but recover. We do not have that NHS capacity....nothing like it. No country in the world does. THAT is why most of it have shut down their economies.


If you really think governments willingly trash their economies then you must live in an alternate universe. Stop looking at the numbers of death as they are, because they have been kept down by the restrictions and ask yourself how much higher you would be prepared to see them go so that you can have less restrictions. When you have decided what your personal limit is, come back to me and we can discuss how palatable that would be to both the public and a government who will seek re-election in four years time.

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So in other words you think we can tax the living

> daylights out of the online high street and thats

> all thats needed? Thats a very 'optimistic'

> approach that will end in tears.

>

> If you want a world class NHS then you need to

> open the economy up - every day you delay is

> making it harder and harder to recover from this

> self-inflicted disaster.


Taxes have been arguably too low for some time. You can't have good public services and ever falling taxes. At the same time, the wage gap has been increasing. The top ten percent are responsible for more than half the income tax receipts collected.


As for the NHS, we spend less on universal healthcare than most other countries in Europe but get extremely good value from it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...