Can My Daughter Leave Wales For Essential Training ?

Grumpy_chap

Jeremy535897 said:

The trouble with this sort of judgment is it is too narrow. There is logic in saying we'll save two 18 year olds rather than one 80 year old. But when it comes to spending hundreds of thousands on either a 1% chance of saving an innocent child's life, or keeping a remorseless serial killer alive for years in jail, we spend it on the murderer.

The latter example is a moral decision, not a financial one.  The alternatives to imprisonment for the murderer are to leave in the community, or death penalty.

Jeremy535897

Grumpy_chap said:

Jeremy535897 said:

The trouble with this sort of judgment is it is too narrow. There is logic in saying we'll save two 18 year olds rather than one 80 year old. But when it comes to spending hundreds of thousands on either a 1% chance of saving an innocent child's life, or keeping a remorseless serial killer alive for years in jail, we spend it on the murderer.

The latter example is a moral decision, not a financial one.  The alternatives to imprisonment for the murderer are to leave in the community, or death penalty.

No, they are both moral and financial decisions. The problem with the murderer is that someone has to kill the murderer, instead of just letting the 80 year old die.

thepurplepixie

Grumpy_chap said:

I don't in any way wish to demean the COVID death figures, but the news reports that "died from COVID" is "death from any cause within 28 days following a COVID-positive diagnosis" and I understand the "within 28 days" was not originally there.  
Does that mean that a COVID-positive diagnosis on 1st October, but knocked down by a bus at the end of this week is still a COVID death?

It also means if you tested positive 29 days before you die of covid it won't be classed as a covid death.  Some people are in hospital for months with covid.  I think it is more likely that someone dies of covid more than 28 days after a positive test than that they get knocked down by a bus within 28 days of a positive test.

thepurplepixie

MattMattMattUK said:

thepurplepixie said:

310 deaths today, we need to do something.

Accept that whilst that is sad, approximately 1,450 people die in the UK every day on average and many of those dying of COVID would be dying of something else if it was not COVID that finished them off. Meanwhile suicides are rising, preventable deaths from cancers, heart disease, septecemia and many other conditions are rising at a considerable pace. Nearly everyone's quality of life has fallen, in some cases dramatically, with the future holding huge mental health issues for a significant number of the population. Unemployment is rising, defaults are rising, taxes will have to rise and government spending will have to be cut long term. 

It is not a one dimensional model, where people either die of COVID or live forever in blissful happiness, we need to take a holistic approach, rather than this incredibly narrow approach we are currently taking and we must resist the further narrowing that the hardcore lockdown idiots are pushing for. 

Everyone is going to die of something else if they don't die of covid.

Dr_Crypto

Aranyani said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Aranyani said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Aranyani said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Aranyani said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Nobody knows how long those patients would have lived. In my area the average age of death for covid patients was 82. In all likelihood those patients wouldn’t have lived that much long. 

How can you know based on just age?  All my grandparents have lived years past that, and I just saw an article on the news about a 90 year old golfer in rude health, certainly not ready to drop dead.   

Because, in general, older people, especially over 80, don’t have much longer to live. 

That’s not to say that some won’t live to 100 but in general we don’t target massive healthcare resources to over 80s  At the expense of much younger patients. 

I really really hope you aren't actually a doctor. 

I really hope you are not in charge of any public budgets.

When you are 80 you may have a different view on whether or not the life and wellbeing of an 80 year old matters. 

Resources are limited, on that basis they are applied where the most benefit can be had. If there are 100 units of resources and it takes 10 to treat an 80 year old, with a 25% probability of success, or 2, to treat a 40 year old with a 50% probability of success you save more people by targeting the limited resources at the younger people.

Also as people age medical intervention can be less useful and often it is obvious that it will not result in a positive outcome, sometimes even just extending suffering for what would otherwise be a fairly quick and painless death. 

When I am 80 I would not want to undergo medical procedures with little to no chance of success, even more so if that would deprive someone of treatment of who had high probability of recovery. 

Your idealism may be admirable if you were a child, but in the real, grown-up world we have to make pragmatic decisions on how to allocate limited resources. That means doing the most amount of good possible, not trying to save everyone, but in doing so causing more death and suffering overall.

We have more than enough resources in this country to provide appropriate care to everybody.

No, we don't and we never have. No healthcare system has unlimited resources and there will always be some rationing whether it is by ability to pay, urgency of need, or something else. 
Look up how NICE works and what QALYs are and you'll see that we have used a system designed to give the best value for money for some time. It doesn't work perfectly but ask yourself whether in a system with finite resources would you rather spend £100k on some drug that would give a cancer patient an extra 6 months of life or would fund 50 cataract ops to restore sight? 
I'm glad I don't work in the area of resource allocation as it is a reallly tough decision but it has to be made. 
Age is never the only criteria but even in normal times very few 80 year olds will go to ITU seeing as they have a poor chance of making it out alive, let alone with any quality of life. 

Jeremy535897

Unfortunately they don't apply the same system to statins, or we could save about £2 billion a year.

Dr_Crypto

Ah, yes statins. That's a real minefield that one! 

smevs

macman said:

To get back to the original point of this post, I thought that the travel restrictions on entering Wales from England only applied to those coming from Tier 2 or Tier 3 areas in England? Where does the OP reside?

We are in Wiltshire so only under medium level restrictions here

tooldle

This copied from Welsh Gov faq document.

Are university students who live away from home expected to return home?

We are asking all students living in Wales, and all our Welsh students living outside Wales, to help us keep Wales safe by not travelling between university and home.

You should only move between your term time address and your home address if absolutely necessary, for example for work, to provide or receive care or because of concerns about your wellbeing. You should not return home for a ‘visit’ during this period. You should not travel home if you have been asked to self-isolate or have Covid-19 symptoms.

silvercar

tooldle said:

This copied from Welsh Gov faq document.

Are university students who live away from home expected to return home?

We are asking all students living in Wales, and all our Welsh students living outside Wales, to help us keep Wales safe by not travelling between university and home.

You should only move between your term time address and your home address if absolutely necessary, for example for work, to provide or receive care or because of concerns about your wellbeing. You should not return home for a ‘visit’ during this period. You should not travel home if you have been asked to self-isolate or have Covid-19 symptoms.

That's ok then, she is travelling for work, or at least essential training to enable her to work.