On Oct 26, 11:49 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT), CP  wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 26, 8:05 am, "Ophelia"  wrote:
> >> "Jane Gillett"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:50afc8c668j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk...
>
> >> > Being over 60, I am among the group with some residual resistance so that
> >> > puts me lower down the list to be vaccinated. OTOH, being diabetic puts me
> >> > up the list for most things so I dunno whether I'll be amongst the early
> >> > ones. If I'm "called", I'll have it but I shall not worry if I'm not> >> Does anyone have any qualms about receiving this vaccine?
>
> >Yes.
> >This news report makes for interesting viewing:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SmFxyust0
>
> Have you got a link to written facts that back up his rumours?
> What was the bit about autism? Not MMR vaccine by any chance?
> and the bit about the vaccine containing mercury?

http://www.profitableharm.com/Swine%20Flu%20Paper%20Janak.html

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:06:30 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

>On 28 Oct 2009 10:31:50 GMT,  wrote:
>
>>Adrian Tupper  wrote:
>>> Dunno about anyone else here, but I'm unlikely to eat 5 portions of fruit 
>>> and veg per day.  
>>
>>Really?  I find there are very few days when I don't, even if I am not
>>putting any effort at all into doing so.  (And remembering that fruit
>>juice, no matter how much you drink, only counts as 1, which I think is
>>a bit mean cos I drink a few different ones!  :-)
>
>You need to run around naked in the sun to top up your vitamin D levels.

Bad advice! Further research shows that -

"Diet and sunshine for vitamin D

Foods containing good amounts of vitamin D are: liver, some fish (mainly oily
fish such as herring, sardines, pilchards, trout, salmon, tuna and mackerel),
egg yolk, and 'fortified' foods (which have vitamin D added) such as some
margarines and breakfast cereals.

Sunshine: 15 minutes three times weekly from April to September, with hands,
arms and face uncovered, is said to be enough for fair-skinned people.
Darker-skinned people will need more sunshine (we don't know how much more).
However, in winter in cold climates, there is not enough sunshine to maintain
vitamin D levels."
-- 

Martin

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:52:18 +0100, "Giusi"  wrote:

>
>"Martin"  ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> You need to run around naked in the sun to top up your vitamin D levels.
>
>My daughter was treated 2 years ago for severe vitamin D insufficiency.  She 
>is extremely fair, so her dermatologist had her wear sunblock 24/7 year 
>round.  The endocrinologist said to leave hands un treated at least. 
>Vitamin D is fat soluble and these low fat diets cause problems as well. 
>The biggest thing, according to him, is that at out lattitudes there simply 
>is not enough sun in winter to get adequate vitamin D.  That in spite of the 
>fact that milk in the USA is enhanced with vitamin D.  It isn't here, but 
>even though this is a fairly sunny country in winter, unlike Netherlands I 
>hear, the days are just too short.  You can get some from cheese, but how 
>much cheese can anyone eat?  Other than Enzo. 
>

If you eat oily fish regularly you get enough vitamin D.
-- 

Martin

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> Foods containing good amounts of vitamin D are: liver, some fish (mainly oily
> fish such as herring, sardines, pilchards, trout, salmon, tuna and mackerel),
> egg yolk, and 'fortified' foods (which have vitamin D added) such as some
> margarines and breakfast cereals.

Heh, I'm pretty much stuffed, then.

> Sunshine: 15 minutes three times weekly from April to September, with hands,
> arms and face uncovered, is said to be enough for fair-skinned people.
> Darker-skinned people will need more sunshine (we don't know how much more).
> However, in winter in cold climates, there is not enough sunshine to maintain
> vitamin D levels."

Not even on clear days?

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:00:30 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:52:18 +0100, "Giusi"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Martin"  ha scritto nel messaggio
>>
>>> You need to run around naked in the sun to top up your vitamin D levels.
>>
>>My daughter was treated 2 years ago for severe vitamin D insufficiency.  She 
>>is extremely fair, so her dermatologist had her wear sunblock 24/7 year 
>>round.  The endocrinologist said to leave hands un treated at least. 
>>Vitamin D is fat soluble and these low fat diets cause problems as well. 
>>The biggest thing, according to him, is that at out lattitudes there simply 
>>is not enough sun in winter to get adequate vitamin D.  That in spite of the 
>>fact that milk in the USA is enhanced with vitamin D.  It isn't here, but 
>>even though this is a fairly sunny country in winter, unlike Netherlands I 
>>hear, the days are just too short.  You can get some from cheese, but how 
>>much cheese can anyone eat?  Other than Enzo. 
>>
>
>If you eat oily fish regularly you get enough vitamin D.

There are, at least, five different forms of vitamin D. D3 is only
made in the skin and you can't get it from natural foods. Ideally we
should get vitamin D from both food and from sunlight. D3 is added to
some foods but not, so far as I know, to oily fish.

Steve

-- 
Neural Planner Software Ltd                  www.NPSL1.com

Following up to vicky@dinky.vm.bytemark.co.uk 

>> Sunshine: 15 minutes three times weekly from April to September, with hands,
>> arms and face uncovered, is said to be enough for fair-skinned people.
>> Darker-skinned people will need more sunshine (we don't know how much more).
>> However, in winter in cold climates, there is not enough sunshine to maintain
>> vitamin D levels."
> 
> Not even on clear days?

if its clear you get skin cancer instead.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:52:23 -0600, "graham"  wrote:

>
>"Mike.. . ."  wrote in message 
>news:1w3w6kavbljbb.119hwbxrmrk2g.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Following up to Tim C.
>>
>>>  if we have a "healthy balanced diet".
>>>
>>> And they are right, regardless of whether millions of punters believe
>>> otherwise and still buy them.
>>
>> we go for Vit C on the advice of a nobel prize winner and the fact alcohol
>> isnt part of that "healthy balanced diet"
>> -- 
>
>I think of it as a complex carbohydrate{:-)

and think that if you eat a healthy diet you excrete the vitamin C taken as
supplements.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:57:25 -0700 (PDT), CP 
wrote:

>On Oct 29, 10:50 am, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), CP 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 29, 10:10 am, "Tim C."  wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:39:19 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett wrote in post :
>> >> <news:50b1b9038ej.gillett@higherstert.co.uk> :
>>
>> >> > No idea whether H1N1 is germ warfare - why should it be?
>>
>> >> It's a plot by the pharmatocracy to increase profits.
>>
>> >> If it is it's very poorly thought out and full of faults. So I suppose it
>> >> must be germ warfare, as we know that the moon landings were faked and that
>> >> the WTC/pentagon attacks were US government conspiracies.  :-)  
>>
>> >Don't know about the moon landings - and don't much care - but am
>> >pretty sure that the WTC/Pentagon attacks weren't carried out by 19
>> >incompetent Saudis, masterminded by a man on a dialysis machine in a
>> >cave near Kabul!
>>
>> At least you are consistent.
>
>It's all a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You prefer the US
>government's conspiracy theory; I don't. Neither of us has any cast-
>iron evidence, but is swayed by what each of us believes to be the
>more probable scenario.

I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
-- 

Martin

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:272je5h1suvofb41b7gl4ppbre5ausm45t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:57:25 -0700 (PDT), CP 
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 29, 10:50 am, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), CP 
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Oct 29, 10:10 am, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:39:19 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett wrote in post 
>>> >> :
>>> >> <news:50b1b9038ej.gillett@higherstert.co.uk> :
>>>
>>> >> > No idea whether H1N1 is germ warfare - why should it be?
>>>
>>> >> It's a plot by the pharmatocracy to increase profits.
>>>
>>> >> If it is it's very poorly thought out and full of faults. So I 
>>> >> suppose it
>>> >> must be germ warfare, as we know that the moon landings were faked 
>>> >> and that
>>> >> the WTC/pentagon attacks were US government conspiracies. :-)
>>>
>>> >Don't know about the moon landings - and don't much care - but am
>>> >pretty sure that the WTC/Pentagon attacks weren't carried out by 19
>>> >incompetent Saudis, masterminded by a man on a dialysis machine in a
>>> >cave near Kabul!
>>>
>>> At least you are consistent.
>>
>>It's all a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You prefer the US
>>government's conspiracy theory; I don't. Neither of us has any cast-
>>iron evidence, but is swayed by what each of us believes to be the
>>more probable scenario.
>
> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for 
> them.
> -- 
>
I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
to think that way{;-)
Graham

On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.

The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
book makes it a conspiracy theory.

The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?

It really is quite simple. Should I use glove puppets, perhaps?

"CP"  wrote in message 
news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for 
> them.

The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
book makes it a conspiracy theory.

The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?

It really is quite simple. Should I use glove puppets, perhaps?

<g>

> I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
> to think that way{;-)
> Graham

lol! 

-- 
Tim C.

Following up to CP 

> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?

middle eastern terrorists who had trained to do so, flying into buildings,
just as they have attacked other targets since in a nutty jihad against
western values (that offended them in Saudi Arabia). How much "sense" does
it make for all the other hundreds of young isalmics to blow themselves to
bits? Do you think they are all western or Israeli plots?

The colossal risks of discovery of an inside or Israeli job as so high and
so catastrophic as to be laughable.

But we all know Prince Phillip murdered Diana, or was it the CIA?
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
<news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :

> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
> 
> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
> book makes it a conspiracy theory.


It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
explanation a conspiracy. 
 
> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?

Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?


-- 
Tim C.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:41:50 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
<news:a0bkfxn2cdse.1oh4p3rinrzbn.dlg@40tude.net> :

> But we all know Prince Phillip murdered Diana, or was it the CIA?

I thought it was the bell-boy at the hotel she was staying at.
-- 
Tim C.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:49:07 -0600, "graham"  wrote:

>
>"Mike.. . ."  wrote in message 
>news:1nwfqy7sr351e.1thyi6vrfwhtz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Following up to Adrian Tupper
>>
>>> Tea could be anything but perhaps only two portions I would guess.  So a
>>> max of 5, typically around 3.
>>
>> I reckon I get 3 max too.
>>
>> Brunch, usually a sarnie, thats zero. Maybe an apple or banana with it so
>> might be 1
>>
>> Dinner, will probably have one or two veg ingredients, never 5!
>>
>> I don't see why it matters? My artichoke and broad bean stew would be a
>> score 2 day (or do the onions count?). I rarely eat the trad meat with
>> little piles of veg type meal, where I suppose you could get it up to 5?
>>
>> Shepherds pie including peas, beans and toms (3) would be better than my
>> artichoke stew? (2) I doubt it.
>> -- 
>IIRC, the Brit standard for a portion of fruit or veg is 80g.  I just 
>weighed an average-sized Royal Gala and it was 180g. Therefore, a couple of 
>apples almost fulfils your daily "need".
>Health Canada advertises a portion as "if it fits in your hand."  Bloody 
>stupid!

Ah the famous standard British handful used by underwear makes since time
immemorial.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:53:00 -0600, "graham"  wrote:

>
>"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:272je5h1suvofb41b7gl4ppbre5ausm45t@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:57:25 -0700 (PDT), CP 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 29, 10:50 am, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), CP 
>>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On Oct 29, 10:10 am, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>>> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:39:19 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett wrote in post 
>>>> >> :
>>>> >> <news:50b1b9038ej.gillett@higherstert.co.uk> :
>>>>
>>>> >> > No idea whether H1N1 is germ warfare - why should it be?
>>>>
>>>> >> It's a plot by the pharmatocracy to increase profits.
>>>>
>>>> >> If it is it's very poorly thought out and full of faults. So I 
>>>> >> suppose it
>>>> >> must be germ warfare, as we know that the moon landings were faked 
>>>> >> and that
>>>> >> the WTC/pentagon attacks were US government conspiracies. :-)
>>>>
>>>> >Don't know about the moon landings - and don't much care - but am
>>>> >pretty sure that the WTC/Pentagon attacks weren't carried out by 19
>>>> >incompetent Saudis, masterminded by a man on a dialysis machine in a
>>>> >cave near Kabul!
>>>>
>>>> At least you are consistent.
>>>
>>>It's all a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You prefer the US
>>>government's conspiracy theory; I don't. Neither of us has any cast-
>>>iron evidence, but is swayed by what each of us believes to be the
>>>more probable scenario.
>>
>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for 
>> them.
>> -- 
>>
>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
>to think that way{;-)

Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :

>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
>>to think that way{;-)
> 
> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.

That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
:-)
 
-- 
Tim C.

Following up to Tim C. 

>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
> 
> Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
> says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?

I though the evidence pointed to *some* Saudis and other arabs doing it.

The "conspiracy theories" are those not based on any evidence, as believed
in Pakistan because they don't like the idea fellow islamists are mad
murdering bastards and do like the idea the US is evil.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:16 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
<news:1qjylbcxy7fmc$.1gg69f8rnhbzh$.dlg@40tude.net> :

> I though the evidence pointed to *some* Saudis and other arabs doing it.

You know what I mean :)

-- 
Tim C.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:19:53 +0000, "Mike.. .  ."
 wrote:

>Following up to Dave 
>
>> My real ale landlord tells me that my lunch time is one of my 5 a day.
>
>of course it is. Did you notice the scientists just rubbished the cannabis
>/ schizophrenia scare? Drug risk escalation is like exam result escalation!

Go away, troll.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:27:11 +0000, "Mike.. .  ."
 wrote:

>Following up to vicky@dinky.vm.bytemark.co.uk 
>
>> Plus I
>> drank fruit juice all day.
>
>isnt that a lot of sugar?

Aren't you a disgusting, sewer dwelling, coward, troll?

Following up to Tim C. 

>> I though the evidence pointed to *some* Saudis and other arabs doing it.
> 
> You know what I mean :)

of course I did :-)
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote in
news:dfnie5hg38quum7hiqa8mt689s6l9uk8pm@4ax.com: 

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:52:23 -0600, "graham"  wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Mike.. . ."  wrote in message 
>>news:1w3w6kavbljbb.119hwbxrmrk2g.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Following up to Tim C.
>>>
>>>>  if we have a "healthy balanced diet".
>>>>
>>>> And they are right, regardless of whether millions of punters
>>>> believe otherwise and still buy them.
>>>
>>> we go for Vit C on the advice of a nobel prize winner and the fact
>>> alcohol isnt part of that "healthy balanced diet"
>>> -- 
>>
>>I think of it as a complex carbohydrate{:-)
> 
> and think that if you eat a healthy diet you excrete the vitamin C
> taken as supplements.

Yes the body won't store it.  Many people believe it works, though, and in 
high doses too.  Sometimes I wonder if somehow the body reacts to a sharp 
increase in vit C levels in a way that helps fight colds.  Just a theory 
and one that's probably hard to test as we don't know exactly what we're 
looking for.

-- 
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:48:33 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
 wrote:

>In article ,
>   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:17:26 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>>  wrote:
>
>> >Bit of a nuisance when the available bed is at the other end of the Trust
>> >area. But anyway, doesn't that just take up beds somewhere else and prevent
>> ><their> local patients being treated? If you've only got x beds you can
>> >only treat what x beds will accomodate regardless of where those beds are
>> >situated. You are simply taking x beds out of the system at the busiest
>> >time.
>
>> Not if there are at least the same number of spare beds as can be treated at any
>> one time.
>
>Don't understand. Hospitals don't seem to run with routinely spare beds
>other than maybe a percentage kept spare for a medical emergency; when a
>patient is sent out there tends to be a new occupant pretty quickly.

Real modern hospitals do, they also have their own deep cleaning facilities.


>
>Defining "beds" as units with sufficient manpower/facilities etc to provide
>basic bed care not merely bedsteads.........
>
>Are you saying that the beds taken out of the system for cleaning in the
>case in question are compensated by using up the beds which are routinely
>kept empty for emergency situations?

No they are kept to allow all beds to be deep cleaned after each patient.


>
>AISI you have either 1. or 2:
>  
>1. You have x beds routinely in use in the Trust area. In addition you have
>some "emergency beds" kept empty for emergencies; you maintain these
>unused. You take y beds out of the system for whatever reason then you are
>left with x-y beds for normal use.
>
>Or.
>
>2. You have x beds routinely in use. In addition you have some "emergency
>beds". When you take y normal beds out of use for cleaning you compensate
>by bringing y of the "emergency beds" into use. And you take a chance that
>you will not get a genuine medical emergency in addition to the mnufactured
>one.
>
>Which did you have in mind?

Neither. Open your mind to the fact that the NHS is still strapped for resources
and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European countries.

-- 

Martin

In article ,
   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:48:33 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>  wrote:

> >In article ,
> >   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:17:26 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
> >>  wrote:
> >
> >> >Bit of a nuisance when the available bed is at the other end of the Trust
> >> >area. But anyway, doesn't that just take up beds somewhere else and prevent
> >> ><their> local patients being treated? If you've only got x beds you can
> >> >only treat what x beds will accomodate regardless of where those beds are
> >> >situated. You are simply taking x beds out of the system at the busiest
> >> >time.
> >
> >> Not if there are at least the same number of spare beds as can be treated at any
> >> one time.
> >
> >Don't understand. Hospitals don't seem to run with routinely spare beds
> >other than maybe a percentage kept spare for a medical emergency; when a
> >patient is sent out there tends to be a new occupant pretty quickly.

> Real modern hospitals do, they also have their own deep cleaning facilities.

Well, I don't know which hospitals are "Real modern" and which predate that
category. If RM hospitals have a system where a recently vacated bed is
deep-cleaned, being replaced for the time needed by a bed kept routinely
spare, how long does that cleaning take? The beds at the start of this
thread are scheduled to be out of use for a few months; presumably <they>
will not be available as backup for the other changovers which will occur
during that time - or is there 100% redundancy ie 1 bed kept empty for
every one in use?

Let's look at this another way. Will the hospital with beds out of use for
this exercise <experience> any lack of bed capacity or will it be able to
have the same patient throughpu as though the exercise was not taking place?

> >
> >Defining "beds" as units with sufficient manpower/facilities etc to provide
> >basic bed care not merely bedsteads.........
> >
> >Are you saying that the beds taken out of the system for cleaning in the
> >case in question are compensated by using up the beds which are routinely
> >kept empty for emergency situations?

> No they are kept to allow all beds to be deep cleaned after each patient.


> >
> >AISI you have either 1. or 2:
> >  
> >1. You have x beds routinely in use in the Trust area. In addition you have
> >some "emergency beds" kept empty for emergencies; you maintain these
> >unused. You take y beds out of the system for whatever reason then you are
> >left with x-y beds for normal use.
> >
> >Or.
> >
> >2. You have x beds routinely in use. In addition you have some "emergency
> >beds". When you take y normal beds out of use for cleaning you compensate
> >by bringing y of the "emergency beds" into use. And you take a chance that
> >you will not get a genuine medical emergency in addition to the mnufactured
> >one.
> >
> >Which did you have in mind?

> Neither. Open your mind to the fact that the NHS is still strapped for resources

<We>, ie our representatives, keep the NHS strapped for cash so that taxes
can be spent on other things - spending half a million dragging a load of
artic rock around the SW coast is a minor example, the Olympics in London
is another - and if that's going to be so good for the country please tell
me how; and please show me a positive balance sheet at the end of it.
Redirection of some money could improve the NHS considerably; so could
redirection of expenses <within> the NHS as I said earlier.

> and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European countries.

Don't know what happens in other countries; some are better, some worse
would be my guess. My opinion is simply that we could spend our money
better both inside the NHS, possibly by having the purse strings controlled
by medics rather than by non-medics, and by redirecting money from some
other exercises that our taxes go towards.

Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

The message 
from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European
> > countries.

> Don't know what happens in other countries; 

  Then you are not listening to Martin.

>  My opinion is simply that we could spend our money
> better both inside the NHS, possibly by having the purse strings controlled
> by medics rather than by non-medics.

   If you  are truly concerned, Jane, you could become both better
informed and better involved at local level.
   Devon's health services are run by a Primary Care Trust at which you
(and local doctors) have the right to be represented;
their budget is online, and no doubt there are public meetings at which
the public service user can raise concerns, question policies and
spending
decisions etc.

   Any or all of which, would be more useful and fruitful than getting 
your "information" from  media reports by  journalists, whose  remit is
to sell newspapers.


    Janet

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:44:45 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
 wrote:

>In article ,
>   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:48:33 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>>  wrote:
>
>> >In article ,
>> >   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:17:26 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>> >>  wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Bit of a nuisance when the available bed is at the other end of the Trust
>> >> >area. But anyway, doesn't that just take up beds somewhere else and prevent
>> >> ><their> local patients being treated? If you've only got x beds you can
>> >> >only treat what x beds will accomodate regardless of where those beds are
>> >> >situated. You are simply taking x beds out of the system at the busiest
>> >> >time.
>> >
>> >> Not if there are at least the same number of spare beds as can be treated at any
>> >> one time.
>> >
>> >Don't understand. Hospitals don't seem to run with routinely spare beds
>> >other than maybe a percentage kept spare for a medical emergency; when a
>> >patient is sent out there tends to be a new occupant pretty quickly.
>
>> Real modern hospitals do, they also have their own deep cleaning facilities.
>
>Well, I don't know which hospitals are "Real modern" and which predate that
>category. If RM hospitals have a system where a recently vacated bed is
>deep-cleaned, being replaced for the time needed by a bed kept routinely
>spare, how long does that cleaning take? The beds at the start of this
>thread are scheduled to be out of use for a few months; presumably <they>
>will not be available as backup for the other changovers which will occur
>during that time - or is there 100% redundancy ie 1 bed kept empty for
>every one in use?

Maybe you are posting  to the wrong thread or asking the wrong person?
I am not a hospital manager I am just telling what happens elsewhere.
-- 

Martin

In article ,
   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> The message 
> from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > > and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European
> > > countries.

> > Don't know what happens in other countries; 

>   Then you are not listening to Martin.

He said we are not state of the art in some respects compared with other
countries.

> >  My opinion is simply that we could spend our money
> > better both inside the NHS, possibly by having the purse strings controlled
> > by medics rather than by non-medics.

>    If you  are truly concerned, Jane, you could become both better
> informed and better involved at local level.
>    Devon's health services are run by a Primary Care Trust at which you
> (and local doctors) have the right to be represented;
> their budget is online, and no doubt there are public meetings at which
> the public service user can raise concerns, question policies and
> spending
> decisions etc.

Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?

Jane

>    Any or all of which, would be more useful and fruitful than getting 
> your "information" from  media reports by  journalists, whose  remit is
> to sell newspapers.



>     Janet

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

The message 
from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> In article ,
>    Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> > The message 
> > from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > > > and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European
> > > > countries.

> > > Don't know what happens in other countries; 

> >   Then you are not listening to Martin.

> He said we are not state of the art in some respects compared with other
> countries.

  you weren't listening....

> > >  My opinion is simply that we could spend our money
> > > better both inside the NHS, possibly by having the purse strings
> > > controlled
> > > by medics rather than by non-medics.

> >    If you  are truly concerned, Jane, you could become both better
> > informed and better involved at local level.
> >    Devon's health services are run by a Primary Care Trust at which you
> > (and local doctors) have the right to be represented;
> > their budget is online, and no doubt there are public meetings at which
> > the public service user can raise concerns, question policies and
> > spending
> > decisions etc.

> Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
> government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?

     Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
governance  is laid out for all to read.
Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
take a look? 

     Janet
   

    Janet.

Following up to Janet Baraclough 

>>>   Then you are not listening to Martin.
> 
>> He said we are not state of the art in some respects compared with other
>> countries.
> 
>   you weren't listening....

who is.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

In article ,
   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> The message 
> from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > In article ,
> >    Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> > > The message 
> > > from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > > > > and not state of the art in some respects compared to other European
> > > > > countries.

> > > > Don't know what happens in other countries; 

> > >   Then you are not listening to Martin.

> > He said we are not state of the art in some respects compared with other
> > countries.

>   you weren't listening....

No speakers on this machine.

> > > >  My opinion is simply that we could spend our money
> > > > better both inside the NHS, possibly by having the purse strings
> > > > controlled
> > > > by medics rather than by non-medics.

> > >    If you  are truly concerned, Jane, you could become both better
> > > informed and better involved at local level.
> > >    Devon's health services are run by a Primary Care Trust at which you
> > > (and local doctors) have the right to be represented;
> > > their budget is online, and no doubt there are public meetings at which
> > > the public service user can raise concerns, question policies and
> > > spending
> > > decisions etc.

> > Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
> > government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?

>      Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
> governance  is laid out for all to read.
> Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
> take a look? 

So I could find out exactly how the govt divides up <all> its (our) money?
I don't really need that amount of information.  The point is that the govt
decides how much money to spend on what and if the NHS cannot afford to
clean properly without removal of facilities at times when they are needed
then <it's not because there isn't enough money in the system>, it's
because the govt - and/or NHS management - thinks that other things are
more important than some aspects of the nation's health. Priorities. And, I
would imagine, expert knowledge or the lack of it.  Govt/mgt view is
apparently that half a million pounds is better spent on sailing a bit of
an Arctic island rock around the south west coast than buying a few more
cleaners; I disagree - I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of
persuading the public to stop wasting resources and that is its only
virtue; just one example. There are other bigger examples (eg 2012) but I
do not have to know all the details of the entire country's budget to be
aware of some of them.

Cheers
Jane.

>      Janet
>    

>     Janet.

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.