I’m happy to answer it. Yes. Because by ‘protecting the NHS’, what you actually mean is that it would be unable to treat some-perhaps many-people. And yet you ignore the fact that the NHS turned people out of its hospitals while deaths from stroke & cardio went through the roof.
https://twitter.com/matthewstadlen/status/1380474838742093827
We can reasonably surmise that that was for one or more of three reasons: that they or others were too scared to call ambulances; that the PPE procedures for paramedics slow down their response times that are critical to survival;...
... and that too little resources were given them *by choice*, not necessity.
(The second I say having spoken to a paramedic who knows that happens.)
(The second I say having spoken to a paramedic who knows that happens.)
Moreover, the Sunday Times’s investigation last year showed that people as young as in their 60s were being denied ICU treatment for Covid because of the ‘expectation’-which the mendacious hospital management must have known was false-that much younger people would need the beds.
So no, the reaction to this pandemic did not ‘save’ the NHS or make it better able to treat people. And had it done, that would not have been worth the unimaginable cost - measured by QALYs or any other means - of the atrocity of lockdown.
Further, deaths at home have never been higher. Again, strong evidence that those who might receive treatment in hospital haven’t been and were not - notwithstanding that hospital capacity was as low at 65% for much of April, May and June last year.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
