Have NPHET lost the attention of people?

Thats me

kippy wrote: »

Something like this may help explain.........
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849534/

This is triage procedure, this happens when the medical system overwhelmed, this is written in the document referred, and this does not explain why some individuals are putting grammies with covid passed away with no ICU in each discussion (for example we discussing 3rd page here after Captain_Crash brang it to the discussion by unknown reason).

kippy

Thats me wrote: »

This is triage procedure, this happens when the medical system overwhelmed, this is written in the document referred, and this does not explain why some individuals are putting grammies with covid passed away with no ICU in each discussion (for example we discussing 3rd page here after Captain_Crash brang it to the discussion by unknown reason).

I don't understand what you are saying tbh.
But assuming you are looking for some rationale around difficult decisions/discussions that doctors have with families you probably need to look in a few areas:
https://hospicefoundation.ie/publications/ethics/ Module 6 probably being most relevant.

So what exactly is the issue you have?

Thats me

kippy wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying tbh.
But assuming you are looking for some rationale around difficult decisions/discussions that doctors have with families you probably need to look in a few areas:
https://hospicefoundation.ie/publications/ethics/ Module 6 probably being most relevant.

So what exactly is the issue you have?

OK. Do you have an idea why we discussing this subject here?

Bass Reeves

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Doctors make a judgement call, a highly experienced call backed up with data, expertise and concurrence with other specialists on what action to take with a patient. That call is based on likelihood of survival amongst other things.

Some elderly people bypassed ICU because Dr's felt the chance of survival was too low. Same as turning off life support, if a person wont recover, they flick the switch and that's the end of someones story. Its the sad reality of life in a hospital.

So to answer your question, these were cases where ICU was simply not applicable. How many was there? I don't know, but we do know several terminal patients were sent to nursing homes in March and April instead of ICU, which had capacity at the time (and still does).

Doctors do not make calls like that. However lots of people in nursing homes have a ''do not resuscitate'' on this. In the case of people that are quite elderly it will a common. As there quality of life may be poor there next of Kin have made an informed decision not to prolong there life unnecessarily.

In these cases there people would not be put in ICU and ventilated. There would be allowed to pass away naturally. If there is not a DNR on the patient doctors and nurses will do as much as possible to keep alive. We never reached the stage where doctors had to make that decision.

When you looks at out excess death rate while we have 2k COVID deaths the excess rate is running 5-600 less than that.

Captain_Crash

Thats me wrote: »

this does not explain why some individuals are putting grammies with covid passed away with no ICU

It’s been explained to you countless times! Regardless of how many beds are available, if someone is so sick and frail that they won’t survive even with ICU treatment, they won’t be sent! If you can’t understand that then I can’t help you!

And proof read your posts man, getting a headache trying to figure out what your saying!!

Royale with Cheese

Lol a worry index, what a massive fúcking own goal. I look forward to the posts from a certain cohort of posters in a month's time when there is an inevitable increase in cases, we should have listened to Tony and his worry index.

thomasdylan

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Doctors do not make calls like that. However lots of people in nursing homes have a ''do not resuscitate'' on this. In the case of people that are quite elderly it will a common. As there quality of life may be poor there next of Kin have made an informed decision not to prolong there life unnecessarily.

In these cases there people would not be put in ICU and ventilated. There would be allowed to pass away naturally. If there is not a DNR on the patient doctors and nurses will do as much as possible to keep alive. We never reached the stage where doctors had to make that decision.

When you looks at out excess death rate while we have 2k COVID deaths the excess rate is running 5-600 less than that.

Resucitation status is ultimately a medical decision not a family decision.

bucketybuck

topper75 wrote: »

When was he at his best - when he said facemasks not needed or when he demanded mandatory facemasks?

Was it when he sent the kids home or allowed the schools to open?

So many twists and turns. Hard to choose.

I am confident that it was when he said nursing homes should not be stopping visitors, and that nursing home staff had no need for PPE.

Although a close second might be where he permitted and attended an anti-alcohol conference with over 1000 attendees in March 2020.

Richard Hillman

Nearly that time of the day again folks. General Holohan will be in his dressing room, getting his make up done,listening to the Rocky IV soundtrack. Glynner repeating the words Eye of the Tiger over and over again to him. The 2 lads wearing nothing but towels.

What has The Master of Disaster got for us today after the Worry Index? Tarot Cards? A gypsy palm reader? A ouija board that spells out "Close Pubs"?

SB71

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Nearly that time of the day again folks. General Holohan will be in his dressing room, getting his make up done,listening to the Rocky IV soundtrack. Glynner repeating the words Eye of the Tiger over and over again to him. The 2 lads wearing nothing but towels.

What has The Master of Disaster got for us today after the Worry Index? Tarot Cards? A gypsy palm reader? A ouija board that spells out "Close Pubs"?

This made me :D:D brilliant :D god knows we all need a laugh as well.

Your daily dose of misery from Dr Death.

aziz

I like THE MASTER OF DISASTER line

MelbourneMan

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Nearly that time of the day again folks. General Holohan will be in his dressing room, getting his make up done,listening to the Rocky IV soundtrack. Glynner repeating the words Eye of the Tiger over and over again to him. The 2 lads wearing nothing but towels.

What has The Master of Disaster got for us today after the Worry Index? Tarot Cards? A gypsy palm reader? A ouija board that spells out "Close Pubs"?

I object to that, and find it rather unhelpful in these current difficult circumstances. The gratuitous personal mocking, and lack of respect for those doing a very difficult job is especially trying circumstances is quite unwarranted. A cheap and low shot. It is consistent with an unpleasant strain of shoot the messenger that pervades some of the discourse around restriction and the exper guidance informing them at this time.

prunudo

And I thought it was paddy green that provided the comic value to the covid threads.

JimmyVik

Thats me wrote: »

OK. Do you have an idea why we discussing this subject here?

I assume its because there is great confusin around everything nphet tell us.
They pick and choose their stats and issue orders without being fully honest with their subjects as to why they are making these decisions.
There needs to be FOI from nphet. Because they certainly arent explaining themselves properly at all.

JimmyVik

MelbourneMan wrote: »

I object to that, and find it rather unhelpful in these current difficult circumstances. The gratuitous personal mocking, and lack of respect for those doing a very difficult job is especially trying circumstances is quite unwarranted. A cheap and low shot. It is consistent with an unpleasant strain of shoot the messenger that pervades some of the discourse around restriction and the exper guidance informing them at this time.

You might be the only one who doesnt find that funny

Thats me

JimmyVik wrote: »

Thats me wrote: »

OK. Do you have an idea why we discussing this subject here?

I assume its because there is great confusin around everything nphet tell us.
They pick and choose their stats and issue orders without being fully honest with their subjects as to why they are making these decisions.
There needs to be FOI from nphet. Because they certainly arent explaining themselves properly at all.

I meant narrower subject, all these non-relevant regrets about 85+ people.

Some poster have suggested we should concentrate on people 75+, i have responded pointing the report from which it is clearly seen about 1/3 of hospitalisations with covid and same proportion of ICU admissions are people younger than 55 yo; 65% hospitalisations and 86% ICU admissions are people younger than 75 yo. This is just a fact, regardless of moral aspects of treatment of 85+ age group which nobody can point what is wrong with it anyway (though may be worth to be discussed in the separate thread).


Back to subject of this thread, in relation to confusion caused by NPHET, what in particular you mean? My understanding confusion coming from govt which seem would prefer to use NPHET as excuse of their own decisions. Earlier i wrote from the chronology of events it seems after returning of Dr. Holohan on his position NPHET stopped producing recommendations in form how government would like to see this and this was the only cause of chaos and stream of unclear accusations to NPHET which was stick to their original line that L5 is required and delay will just extend period of restrictions which was finally confirmed by the life.

JimmyVik

Thats me wrote: »

I meant narrower subject, all these non-relevant regrets about 85+ people.

Some poster have suggested we should concentrate on people 75+, i have responded pointing the report from which it is clearly seen about 1/3 of hospitalisations with covid and same proportion of ICU admissions are people younger than 55 yo; 65% hospitalisations and 86% ICU admissions are people younger than 75 yo. This is just a fact, regardless of moral aspects of treatment of 85+ age group which nobody can point what is wrong with it anyway (though may be worth to be discussed in the separate thread).


Back to subject of this thread, in relation to confusion caused by NPHET, what in particular you mean? My understanding confusion coming from govt which seem would prefer to use NPHET as excuse of their own decisions. Earlier i wrote from the chronology of events it seems after returning of Dr. Holohan on his position NPHET stopped producing recommendations in form how government would like to see this and this was the only cause of chaos and stream of unclear accusations to NPHET which was stick to their original line that L5 is required and delay will just extend period of restrictions which was finally confirmed by the life.

There are 146 pages of posts about confusing and contradictory advice from nphet. Take your pick. They will not share their data in a form that can be interrogated to make it clear to those whose lives they are effecting. Thats a big no no.

Thats me

JimmyVik wrote: »

There are 146 pages of posts

OK, this stands for "nothing in particular".

JimmyVik

Thats me wrote: »

OK, this stands for "nothing in particular".

Well if you cant be bothered to read them.
But sure doesnt that happen all the time on these threads.
People come on on page 146 and ask people what they are talking about, and want others to do their reading for them. There are so so many examples if you were bothered to catch up.

Thats me

JimmyVik wrote: »

Well if you cant be bothered to read them.
But sure doesnt that happen all the time on these threads.
People come on on page 146 and ask people what they are talking about, and want others to do their reading for them. There are so so many examples if you were bothered to catch up.

LOL, you even didn't read my answer? Question was why we talking about "85+". And that was rhetoric question.

JimmyVik wrote: »

People come on on page 146 and ask people what they are talking about

OK, you have described yourself.

Gael23

Another one of the cervical check campaigners has died

emo72

Gael23 wrote: »

Another one of the cervical check campaigners has died

That alone should make Houlihan hang his head in shame. The man is a ghoul.

Bits_n_Bobs

Bracing myself for another flood of curated numbers from NPHET this evening...surely their job now is to forget the blather and use their media platform to report progress and highlight deficiencies around

1) track and trace
2) number of ICU beds
3) whatever is going on with flu vacine this year, appears to be huge confusion
4) what the HSE is doing to assist (and minimise) obvious hotspots such as care homes, meat plants, traveller community and immigration centers

All the above are within the remit of the stare, and would benefit from positive actions taken by the state, but instead we get some sort of warped blame game against citizens of the state....

November Golf

Gael23 wrote: »

Another one of the cervical check campaigners has died

emo72 wrote: »

That alone should make Houlihan hang his head in shame. The man is a ghoul.

I don't understand this argument about cervical check.

Unfortunately, these women got cancer however that has nothing to do with the screening programme. The programme which is managed by the HSE, not the dept of health, is design to detect early signs of cancer. Its not a preventative measure.

No one can deny it returned incorrect results and that it caused wide-spread distress, however the constant need to blame one person, that wasn't even involved in the programme, is completely ridiculous.

The CMO wrote a letter, badly worded perhaps, advising the minister to allow the Dept of Health (again, not directly involved in the screening programme) to carry out a review of the (at that time) alleged failures.

As the CMO, it makes sense that he would carryout the review, so why should he "hang his head in shame"?.

jd1983

MelbourneMan wrote: »

I object to that, and find it rather unhelpful in these current difficult circumstances. The gratuitous personal mocking, and lack of respect for those doing a very difficult job is especially trying circumstances is quite unwarranted. A cheap and low shot. It is consistent with an unpleasant strain of shoot the messenger that pervades some of the discourse around restriction and the exper guidance informing them at this time.

It's quite common for people to resort to humour as a method of quelling anger and there's definitely a lot of people feeling anger towards NPHET and Holohan. I feel this is very understandable.
This is why there has been so many Donald Trump memes floating around for the past 4 years. Your post above is very similar to posts I've seen from supporters of Donald Trump.

Captain_Crash

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I don't understand this argument about cervical check.

Unfortunately, these women got cancer however that has nothing to do with the screening programme. The programme which is managed by the HSE, not the dept of health, is design to detect early signs of cancer. Its not a preventative measure.

No one can deny it returned incorrect results and that it caused wide-spread distress, however the constant need to blame one person, that wasn't even involved in the programme, is completely ridiculous.

The CMO wrote a letter, badly worded perhaps, advising the minister to allow the Dept of Health (again, not directly involved in the screening programme) to carry out a review of the (at that time) alleged failures.

As the CMO, it makes sense that he would carryout the review, so why should he "hang his head in shame"?.

He knew about the issues for two years before doing anything, and then when he did admit he knew about it he wanted to head up the review into it himself (after pressuring the MOH not to open a review into it in the first place)!

Over 200* women have died because of the scandal, many of whom may be with us today if he had done something when he was first made aware of the issues and not sat on the info for so long.

*to my knowledge

November Golf

Captain_Crash wrote: »

He knew about the issues for two years before doing anything, and then when he did admit he knew about it he wanted to head up the review into it himself (after pressuring the MOH not to open a review into it in the first place)!

Over 200* women have died because of the scandal, many of whom may be with us today if he had done something when he was first made aware of the issues and not sat on the info for so long.

*to my knowledge

I haven't seen any evidence that the CMO knew anything about the issue prior, nor was it stated in any reports into the issue that I have seen. To my knowledge Cancer Screening policy area isn't even part of the role of the CMO office, so there is no reason to believe he was receiving any briefing on the service, in general, up to the point in which he wrote to the minister.

As I said, it makes sense that the CMO wanted to carryout a review of the service. You should expect that of any senior manager in any organisation that becomes aware of issues. That doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith.

The pressure obviously wasn't that much given the Ministers decided to go in a different direction, which he is entitled to do, but that was as much about politics as it was about finding out the truth. To suggest the minister didn't have confident in Dr Holohan to carryout the review in not a creditable conclusion.

Cancer screening is not a preventative measure, its a early detection tool and most people that receive cancer diagnosis isn't from screening programmes - they actually present with signs and symptoms.

There is no doubt that women died and that is awful, but they died from cancer -to blame the one person for that is an unbelievable leap.

crossman47

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I don't understand this argument about cervical check.

Unfortunately, these women got cancer however that has nothing to do with the screening programme. The programme which is managed by the HSE, not the dept of health, is design to detect early signs of cancer. Its not a preventative measure.

No one can deny it returned incorrect results and that it caused wide-spread distress, however the constant need to blame one person, that wasn't even involved in the programme, is completely ridiculous.

The CMO wrote a letter, badly worded perhaps, advising the minister to allow the Dept of Health (again, not directly involved in the screening programme) to carry out a review of the (at that time) alleged failures.

As the CMO, it makes sense that he would carryout the review, so why should he "hang his head in shame"?.

Very well put. People have forgotten what the issue was here. It revolved around failure to inform people who were already being treated for cancer that an audit of earlier screenings showed they probably should have given a positive result. It did not affect their treatment in any way. Unfortunately too many people, aided by scaremongering politicians (Kelly, Mary Lou, et al) remember only a bit of the history and falsely think a positive result was hidden.

Captain_Crash

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence that the CMO knew anything about the issue prior

He admitted it! “If I escalate every potential risk I am aware of; all risks I am aware of, I wouldn’t be doing my job. I stand over the advice I gave, I made professional judgments,”

Your right he’s not responsible for all the bad screenings and many of the people who are sadly no longer with us unfortunately would have died anyway, his actions compounded it tho! He went two years without informing government of the issues... two years!!!

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20470821.html%3ftype=amp

November Golf

Captain_Crash wrote: »

He admitted it! “If I escalate every potential risk I am aware of; all risks I am aware of, I wouldn’t be doing my job. I stand over the advice I gave, I made professional judgments,”

Your right he’s not responsible for all the bad screenings and many of the people who are sadly no longer with us unfortunately would have died anyway, his actions compounded it tho! He went two years without informing government of the issues... two years!!!

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20470821.html%3ftype=amp

That was a general statement taken out of context.

Holohan said the decision not to escalate to the Minister for Health was a fair and reasonable decision, telling the panel:

It was reasonable because the information provided in the briefing notes provided by the HSE to the Department was evidence of ongoing improvement to how the service was being delivered, rather than the identification of a problem which, of its nature, required escalation to ministerial level.

The HSE has and will confirm that within their systems no escalation of concern in relation to the implementation of this audit programme took place.

https://www.thejournal.ie/acting-hse-boss-apologises-cervical-check-4015744-May2018/