Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 15, 2024, 08:08:03 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Matt Hancock  (Read 5756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

phil old leake

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2310
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #120 on November 30, 2022, 01:07:05 pm by phil old leake »
From the Collins dictionary

TRANSITIVE VERB
‘ If you hate someone or something, you have an extremely strong feeling of dislike for them.’

TRANSITIVE VERB
‘If you say that you hate something such as a particular activity, you mean that you find it very unpleasant’

I think it’s fair to say that some of the posters on this thread have adequately shown an extreme dislike to Matt Hancock. 

You can’t just interpret words in ways that suit agendas.  Although it appears on here you can



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #121 on November 30, 2022, 02:37:11 pm by Ldr »
Taking emotion out of this Colin, discharging those patients was the correct thing to do. Once there is no further medical need for the patient to be in a hospital bed then that bed needs to be freed up for other people in need. Medical need here excludes recuperating which can be done at home. The crime for me is care homes were not checked to have adequate infection controls in place to prevent spread. Still lies at the regulatory bodies and governments door but is an important distinction

ravenrover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9746
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #122 on November 30, 2022, 02:55:13 pm by ravenrover »
But it was the reason they used as their excuse

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37004
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #123 on November 30, 2022, 05:22:44 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Taking emotion out of this Colin, discharging those patients was the correct thing to do. Once there is no further medical need for the patient to be in a hospital bed then that bed needs to be freed up for other people in need. Medical need here excludes recuperating which can be done at home. The crime for me is care homes were not checked to have adequate infection controls in place to prevent spread. Still lies at the regulatory bodies and governments door but is an important distinction

No, no, NO!

The crime is that they were discharged without testing, when it was known that the elderly were supremely vulnerable to COVID. That was unforgivable. And Hancock knew it was unforgivable, because he lied to the PM about it, and lied to the country, saying he'd put a ring of iron around care homes. He also lied later about what was known about asymptomatic transmission.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37004
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #124 on November 30, 2022, 05:29:25 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
From the Collins dictionary

TRANSITIVE VERB
‘ If you hate someone or something, you have an extremely strong feeling of dislike for them.’

TRANSITIVE VERB
‘If you say that you hate something such as a particular activity, you mean that you find it very unpleasant’

I think it’s fair to say that some of the posters on this thread have adequately shown an extreme dislike to Matt Hancock. 

You can’t just interpret words in ways that suit agendas.  Although it appears on here you can

You are entirely missing the point.

I personally have an extreme dislike for what he has done throughout his professional life. I've given justifications for this opinion for every example I've set out.


He may well be a very nice person in his private life (Although I'd ask his wife's opinion on that). He may well get cats down from trees and cook dinner for his pensioner neighbours. That's irrelevant. In his professional life, he's made a series of at best incompetent, at worst deliberate decisions that have done untold damage to the country. I have an extreme dislike of those sort of decisions, and the sort of professional person who makes them and doesn't learn from them.

I don't wish him any ill for that. I just want him to do no further harm to the country my kids will grow up in.

Donnywolf

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 20396
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #125 on November 30, 2022, 05:32:06 pm by Donnywolf »
Taking emotion out of this Colin, discharging those patients was the correct thing to do. Once there is no further medical need for the patient to be in a hospital bed then that bed needs to be freed up for other people in need. Medical need here excludes recuperating which can be done at home. The crime for me is care homes were not checked to have adequate infection controls in place to prevent spread. Still lies at the regulatory bodies and governments door but is an important distinction

No, no, NO!

The crime is that they were discharged without testing, when it was known that the elderly were supremely vulnerable to COVID. That was unforgivable. And Hancock knew it was unforgivable, because he lied to the PM about it, and lied to the country, saying he'd put a ring of iron around care homes. He also lied later about what was known about asymptomatic transmission.


.... and what was the chronology re Nightingale Hospitals ?

Could recovered patients have gone there (or rather to "them" as there were a lot built).

If not why were they built ... though that is another question for the Enquiry

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #126 on November 30, 2022, 06:07:16 pm by Ldr »
Taking emotion out of this Colin, discharging those patients was the correct thing to do. Once there is no further medical need for the patient to be in a hospital bed then that bed needs to be freed up for other people in need. Medical need here excludes recuperating which can be done at home. The crime for me is care homes were not checked to have adequate infection controls in place to prevent spread. Still lies at the regulatory bodies and governments door but is an important distinction

No, no, NO!

The crime is that they were discharged without testing, when it was known that the elderly were supremely vulnerable to COVID. That was unforgivable. And Hancock knew it was unforgivable, because he lied to the PM about it, and lied to the country, saying he'd put a ring of iron around care homes. He also lied later about what was known about asymptomatic transmission.

Your missing my point Billy, even if they were tested and regardless of whether the result was positive or negative if they didn’t have a medical need for a hospital bed they should be discharged. Massive failure to ensure proper infection control in care homes ensued. I agree with all your other points btw

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37004
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #127 on November 30, 2022, 06:19:50 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Ldr.

But the care homes didn't know which people had COVID. That's the whole point. They couldn't implement infection control without knowing who was infected. What were they supposed to do? Keep every person in isolation for the duration?

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #128 on November 30, 2022, 06:24:32 pm by Ldr »
BST believe me I do agree with that, my point is only that as long as you no longer have a medical need for a bed in hospital you are discharged.

belton rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2918
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #129 on November 30, 2022, 07:18:30 pm by belton rover »
Literally no-one else using the word or the sense of the word "hate".

I trust the mods are watching.

Isn’t waving an imaginary card in the ref’s face a bookable offence?

Sportsmanship at its worst. What’s a 4th tier off topic forum coming to?

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37004
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #130 on November 30, 2022, 09:05:30 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
BST believe me I do agree with that, my point is only that as long as you no longer have a medical need for a bed in hospital you are discharged.

I absolutely agree.

ravenrover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9746
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #131 on December 01, 2022, 09:06:53 am by ravenrover »
Ldr does that include discharging patients with  no Social Care to look after them at home?

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #132 on December 01, 2022, 09:16:36 am by Ldr »
RR you have nailed one of the major systematic failings that stifles patient flow through hospitals. The lack of adequate social care means patients having to remain in a bed they don’t need. That’s the reality of the situation.

ncRover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3467
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #133 on December 01, 2022, 10:33:20 pm by ncRover »
RR you have nailed one of the major systematic failings that stifles patient flow through hospitals. The lack of adequate social care means patients having to remain in a bed they don’t need. That’s the reality of the situation.

How is this solved? Seems the root cause of many issues

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #134 on December 02, 2022, 01:26:41 pm by Ldr »
Social care is chronically underfunded, more so than the nhs. Most is owned privately too. Both are issues l think need addressing. At the moment the hospital system (public) is under strain due to numbers hitting it, but handicapped by social care (private) been able to take patients that are medically fit and by numbers hitting emergency departments due to not been able to see their GP (private) noticable that the private owned areas are big issues

Colin C No.3

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 4259
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #135 on December 02, 2022, 02:32:40 pm by Colin C No.3 »
We’re constantly being told that patients are queuing up in corridors on trolleys due to the lack of beds.

Could we not be using the seven ‘Nightingale Hospitals’ built to ‘house’ covid patients to ‘ease’ the current strain on NHS hospitals?

Or is it not also the case that we don’t havé enough staff to nurse patients if over night we could suddenly produce another 4,000 beds?

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #136 on December 02, 2022, 03:03:28 pm by Ldr »
Most of the nightingale sites have been decommissioned

Ldr

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2689
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #137 on December 02, 2022, 03:09:09 pm by Ldr »
We’re constantly being told that patients are queuing up in corridors on trolleys due to the lack of beds.

Could we not be using the seven ‘Nightingale Hospitals’ built to ‘house’ covid patients to ‘ease’ the current strain on NHS hospitals?

Or is it not also the case that we don’t havé enough staff to nurse patients if over night we could suddenly produce another 4,000 beds?


Currently it’s like a full bath, with the taps running but the plug hole is clogged with hair. The bath may be big enough but the taps need the flow turning down (increase gp availability) and the plug needs unclogging (increase availability of social care) then you have a more accurate picture of whether your bath is large enough
« Last Edit: December 02, 2022, 03:11:56 pm by Ldr »

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13769
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #138 on December 03, 2022, 11:31:46 pm by SydneyRover »
A history according mat handjob is rustling a few feathers with his version of the truth.

''“In terms of the 1.2% statistic, we weren’t testing people, we had no tests to do so … so where have they got that stat from? There was no guidance whatsoever from any authority, no funding, no training with PPE, no support at all til the very late half of 2020''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/03/care-workers-hit-back-at-matt-hancocks-claim-staff-brought-covid-to-care-homes

hmmm

mugnapper

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1903
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #139 on December 07, 2022, 02:17:38 pm by mugnapper »
BBC News - Matt Hancock to stand down at next election
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63891100

What a shock lol

Donnywolf

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 20396
Re: Matt Hancock
« Reply #140 on December 07, 2022, 07:08:53 pm by Donnywolf »
Anyone we know looking for a possible safer Seat than they have?

Just today Barclay the newest Health Secretary said Nurses should knuckle down and not expect inflation busting wage increases.

As a touche someone released his claimed expenses for the last Parliamentary year. Figures released showed he " bagged just over £171000" having claimed in total for JUST 164 things on expenses

So that shows what an MP can bag on top of their pay and subsidized meals , drinks etc. so no wonder they want to be there in the first place

Nice work if you can get it
« Last Edit: December 07, 2022, 11:15:18 pm by Donnywolf »

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012