Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:44 pm
Regarding the spending it’s ranked in USD 25% of the comparison lost in sterling depreciation.
It was nominated in dollars but also measured in percentage points of GDP
Perhaps you could explain how the sterling depreciation works in this case as it's the first I've heard of it regarding health care spending comparisons.
Keep clapping.
What's wrong with you?
If something is measured in USD then relative exchange rate to USD is quite important.
Nothing.
Amazing that the Commonwealth Fund haven't thought about that! Amazing that they haven't taken into account the impact of converting £ into $ and balancing the impact this makes for their analysis. Perhaps bimbo should get in touch and offer his expertise and inside knowledge as the Commonwealth Fund clearly dont know what they are doing and given they probably dont participate in this Forum will have missed Bimbo's wise insight into carrying out a comparative analysis across different health systems?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:28 pm
by Niegs
Oh, so this is why we can't go back to normal! Selfish cunts!!!
Aylmer, a town of about 7,500 people located 40 kilometres southeast of London, Ont., was the scene of what organizers described as a "freedom march" on Oct. 24 to protest COVID-19 restrictions.
The town of Aylmer has one-quarter of all confirmed positive COVID-19 cases in a jurisdiction that takes in the cities of St. Thomas and Woodstock. Southwestern Public Health says 89 cases, out of a total of 337, have been counted in the town since the pandemic began.
... note: St Thomas has nearly 39000 people, Woodstock nearly 41000, Tillsonburg is double Alymer's size and there are many villages in this large farming community (but suspect, as a strong conservative area, they've bought into US con rhetoric like they do in Alberta)
It was nominated in dollars but also measured in percentage points of GDP
Perhaps you could explain how the sterling depreciation works in this case as it's the first I've heard of it regarding health care spending comparisons.
What's wrong with you?
If something is measured in USD then relative exchange rate to USD is quite important.
Nothing.
Amazing that the Commonwealth Fund haven't thought about that! Amazing that they haven't taken into account the impact of converting £ into $ and balancing the impact this makes for their analysis. Perhaps bimbo should get in touch and offer his expertise and inside knowledge as the Commonwealth Fund clearly dont know what they are doing and given they probably dont participate in this Forum will have missed Bimbo's wise insight into carrying out a comparative analysis across different health systems?
This is what annoys me most about armchair pricks like him. They think this kind of observation is some revelatory, study changing FACT that the people who did the work didn't take into account. It's the most arrogant, patronising shite (and btw epitomises English / British / American exceptionalism).
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:31 pm
by Saint
Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:06 pm
Saint
If the Oxford vaccine proves effective, we will have enough vaccine for the whole of the UK (that's what I've read). If reliant on the other 2 front runner vaccines the limit is for 20 million.
Is this correct?
It's somewhat less than clear how many AZ does are actually earmarked for use in the UK. The UK government has an order in for 100 million doses total - but the initial press release was that only 30 million of them would be for use in the UK, and subsequent documents have discussed different numbers. We then have 30 million on order of Pfixer/BioNtech, and 60 million of Valneva
It;s also not clear which vaccines will require boosters or over what timeframes (fairly obviously, at this point it's impossible to say if a booster is needed in 24 months for instance). But the US FDA is requiring a 3 month booster is administered, with subsequent monitoring, before it will approve any vaccine at the moment
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:49 pm
by Longshanks
Thanks for your reply Saint
Appreciated
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:53 pm
by Insane_Homer
3rd November 2020
Public Health England has released the following statement:
"Owing to technical difficulties, we have not received cases data for England. We will update the service as soon as possible."
Usually a precursor to the numbers being not good.
Public Health England has released the following statement:
"Owing to technical difficulties, we have not received cases data for England. We will update the service as soon as possible."
Usually a precursor to the numbers being not good.
It's Tuesday
They are usually bad on a Tuesday anyway
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:31 pm
by Saint
Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:49 pm
Thanks for your reply Saint
Appreciated
Public Health England has released the following statement:
"Owing to technical difficulties, we have not received cases data for England. We will update the service as soon as possible."
Usually a precursor to the numbers being not good.
Too low to maintain the narrative ?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:39 pm
by Bimbowomxn
Amazing that the Commonwealth Fund haven't thought about that! Amazing that they haven't taken into account the impact of converting £ into $ and balancing the impact this makes for their analysis. Perhaps bimbo should get in touch and offer his expertise and inside knowledge as the Commonwealth Fund clearly dont know what they are doing and given they probably dont participate in this Forum will have missed Bimbo's wise insight into carrying out a comparative analysis across different health systems?
Do you know if they’d normalised the currency rates ?
Amazing that the Commonwealth Fund haven't thought about that! Amazing that they haven't taken into account the impact of converting £ into $ and balancing the impact this makes for their analysis. Perhaps bimbo should get in touch and offer his expertise and inside knowledge as the Commonwealth Fund clearly dont know what they are doing and given they probably dont participate in this Forum will have missed Bimbo's wise insight into carrying out a comparative analysis across different health systems?
Do you know if they’d normalised the currency rates ?
Amazing that the Commonwealth Fund haven't thought about that! Amazing that they haven't taken into account the impact of converting £ into $ and balancing the impact this makes for their analysis. Perhaps bimbo should get in touch and offer his expertise and inside knowledge as the Commonwealth Fund clearly dont know what they are doing and given they probably dont participate in this Forum will have missed Bimbo's wise insight into carrying out a comparative analysis across different health systems?
Do you know if they’d normalised the currency rates ?
So you assert they were amazing and reported with currency adjustments and then........
Did they include the UK spend on dentistry and private medical insurance and care in the UK number ?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:06 pm
by Tichtheid
Just click through on the links and read the information you are being spoon fed, how much more help do you need?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:09 pm
by Bimbowomxn
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:06 pm
Just click through on the links and read the information you are being spoon fed, how much more help do you need?
Your links say nothing of the commonwealth fund study ..... the information says nothing of the reports currency policy.
You don’t really grasp what I’m asking. Best leave it.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:06 pm
Just click through on the links and read the information you are being spoon fed, how much more help do you need?
Your links say nothing of the commonwealth fund study ..... the information says nothing of the reports currency policy.
You don’t really grasp what I’m asking. Best leave it.
You are disputing that the UK spends less on healthcare than those countries mentioned the report I posted, it’s up to you to prove that.
I can only help you so much, you’ll have to do the running on this, or duck out as you have done with every other topic you've been wrong on.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:06 pm
Just click through on the links and read the information you are being spoon fed, how much more help do you need?
Your links say nothing of the commonwealth fund study ..... the information says nothing of the reports currency policy.
You don’t really grasp what I’m asking. Best leave it.
You are disputing that the UK spends less on healthcare than those countries mentioned the report I posted, it’s up to you to prove that.
I can only help you so much, you’ll have to do the running on this, or duck out as you have done with every other topic you've been wrong on.
What rubbish, you’ve claimed they make adjustments for currency , you’ve shown me a couple of links that don’t have anything to do with the commonwealth report.
Again you’re about with wooly shite like
You are disputing that the UK spends less on healthcare than those countries mentioned the report I posted, it’s up to you to prove that.
Yes, we spend more than New Zealand and Australia...... you know that right.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:50 pm
by Tichtheid
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:41 pm
, you’ve claimed they make adjustments for currency
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:41 pm
, you’ve claimed they make adjustments for currency
Wrong yet again.
Apologies, however you did pick up the baton and run with the assertion....
Though your links to his conundrum show you don’t understand what’s being discussed.
The report you took issue with was from The Commonwealth Fund, which in case it's of any interest is "a private U.S. foundation whose stated purpose is to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable and the elderly." It is active in a number of areas related to health care and health policy. It is led by David Blumenthal, M.D."
The other documents I found relating to healthcare comparisons use PPPs and are adjusted for differences in cost of living, they show the UK spending 9.7% of GDP on healthcare, Aus on 9.1% and NZ on 9.1% the other countries spend more than the aggregated UK, the US much more.
The initial quote I made stated that the UK's spend was compared to the mean across the 11 nations. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that used adjusted figures if the other ones I found did.
You are welcome to prove otherwise.
What is getting lost here is the performance of the NHS according to that report, coming in repeatedly as the best overall healthcare system in the world.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm
by Bimbowomxn
What is getting lost here is the performance of the NHS according to that report, coming in repeatedly as the best overall healthcare system in the world.
Except at keeping you alive.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:17 pm
by Glaston
What happened to all the stories about various animals that were catching C19 ( or at least testing +ve) that we heard of way back in march/april/may?
This came to mind when I heard that Ivermectin is a proposed treatment for C19 in humans.
Ivermectin is a commonly used to treat livestock for parasites and biting flies.
In my rant at Northerners over the weekend, it turns out southerners are just as moronic.
Police broke up 700 person rave near Bristol.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:35 pm
by fishfoodie
Glaston wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:17 pm
What happened to all the stories about various animals that were catching C19 ( or at least testing +ve) that we heard of way back in march/april/may?
This came to mind when I heard that Ivermectin is a proposed treatment for C19 in humans.
Ivermectin is a commonly used to treat livestock for parasites and biting flies.
In my rant at Northerners over the weekend, it turns out southerners are just as moronic.
Police broke up 700 person rave near Bristol.
You just need to look at the bimbot to know that there are thick cunts south of the Watford gap too.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:42 pm
by Saint
Glaston wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:17 pm
What happened to all the stories about various animals that were catching C19 ( or at least testing +ve) that we heard of way back in march/april/may?
This came to mind when I heard that Ivermectin is a proposed treatment for C19 in humans.
Ivermectin is a commonly used to treat livestock for parasites and biting flies.
In my rant at Northerners over the weekend, it turns out southerners are just as moronic.
Police broke up 700 person rave near Bristol.
The it's extremely rare - virtually no animals are known to have caught it from humans, and vice-versa.
Ivermectin is a fairly common treatment for head lice in humans as well - but the proposed doses in humans are stupidly high. The side effects of doses that high are not fully known, but we're talking vision impairment (possibly permanent) and others
What is getting lost here is the performance of the NHS according to that report, coming in repeatedly as the best overall healthcare system in the world.
Except at keeping you alive.
This is reductive, at best.
The NHS funding deficit has been discussed, there are fewer doctors, nurses, physios etc compared to the countries where we lag in some diseases, there is less specialist equipment available to the staff.
Where we do lag behind in outcomes, eg some cancers, the UK lags by a few percentage points, but it is improving at roughly the same rate as the other countries are improving their care. It's still not good enough, nor is it in the other countries.
We do perform better than those same countries in other aspects, we are better at treating diabetes and preventing suicides
This is a multi-faceted topic, far too complex for that facile statement you made, if you are interested in full picture look up the report called The NHS at 70 how good is the NHS, conducted by the Nuffield Trust and others.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:04 am
by Insane_Homer
Belated stats due to delays yesterday
Deaths: 397 (367 last Tues)
Cases: 20,018
Deaths, still increasing but at a much slower rate than previous 2 weeks.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:11 am
by Sandstorm
Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:04 am
Belated stats due to delays yesterday
Deaths: 397 (367 last Tues)
Cases: 20,018
Deaths, still increasing but at a much slower rate than previous 2 weeks.
Perhaps as a result of the NI and Wales lockdowns?
