Tragedy in our care homes masks ‘successes’ in NHS hospitals

OUR Government is keen to stress that, when measured against their own objectives, their strategy in dealing with coronavirus has been a success.

It is true that hospitals still have spare capacity on a scale we have not seen for decades. It is also true that the messaging surrounding the lockdown has been clear and well understood, to the point that there is now some concern about how people will react when restrictions are eventually lifted.

Thankfully, we have been spared TV images of NHS hospitals and hospital staff at breaking point and this is a welcome contrast to the scenes we saw in China and Italy in the weeks leading up to our own crisis. A cynic might point out, however, that the pain being suffered by those working and living in social care settings was considered more likely to pass under the radar of the press and broader public, and, therefore, less likely to cause reputational damage.

It is becoming clearer by the day that the costs of pursuing this narrow objective have been enormous in terms of loss of life, heartache and socio-economic harm.

Undoubtedly, those suffering from Covid-19 admitted to hospitals have received the very best care but with operating theatres closed, cancer treatment on hold, the elderly being refused admission and routine screening cancelled, the NHS has ceased to fully serve its main purpose.

What appears to be an enormous success on the surface is a tragedy for those individuals who cannot access the treatment they desperately need and, in many cases, had already been awaiting for many months.

A different objective, perhaps one focused on minimising deaths of the most vulnerable to the disease, would in all likelihood have led to a very different strategy, perhaps more aligned with other island nations such as New Zealand and Taiwan, where Covid-19 deaths in hospital and social care settings have been incredibly low.

There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind now that a razor sharp focus on reducing death rates alone would have resulted in a decision to lockdown much sooner, during which time PPE and testing capacity could have been built up to the levels required.

This would have allowed much needed time for the establishment of a comprehensive, nationwide system of “Test, Trace, Isolate and Track” which the Government has belatedly realised is the key to understanding and controlling this virus.

From: John Edwards, Carlisle.

I AM disquieted by the negative press in some quarters of the media for sensationalist reporting in the midst of the crisis.

We have, on the one hand, some who are insisting on an end to the lockdown but, on the other hand, emphasising the large numbers who have succumbed to the virus and failure by Government to contain. End the lockdown too soon and the numbers will rise even more!

I cannot recall many in the press demanding an early lockdown and loss of our liberty in March, and yet what were each of us doing then to ensure a reduction in our contacts? We all have a responsibility to each other and ourselves.

A recent report states that it took three months for the virus to affect 100,000 – yet just a further 12 days for that number to double. Hindsight is wonderful but if there is ever a time for a firm hand on the rudder it is now. We are in a national – international – crisis. In the last war (and if the virus is not a war then perhaps we should view it as such), reporting had to be positive and careless or negative talk was not encouraged.

There is too much posturing and some in the press simply cannot report on the positive steps the Government has done in these unprecedented times, seeking only to highlight the negative as to what has not been done.

From: Barry Foster, High Stakesby, Whitby.

OF course the furloughed workers should go and help the farmers etc. Also those on unemployment benefit. Is this not what helping each other out means? I am now in my 80s, reasonably fit, and would welcome the chance to be allowed to get out and assist.

This is nothing at all like the war years, as some of us are led to believe. We should all be sticking together and, at least, trying to do our best.

Editor’s note: first and foremost - and rarely have I written down these words with more sincerity - I hope this finds you well.

Almost certainly you are here because you value the quality and the integrity of the journalism produced by The Yorkshire Post’s journalists - almost all of which live alongside you in Yorkshire, spending the wages they earn with Yorkshire businesses - who last year took this title to the industry watchdog’s Most Trusted Newspaper in Britain accolade.

And that is why I must make an urgent request of you: as advertising revenue declines, your support becomes evermore crucial to the maintenance of the journalistic standards expected of The Yorkshire Post. If you can, safely, please buy a paper or take up a subscription. We want to continue to make you proud of Yorkshire’s National Newspaper but we are going to need your help.

Postal subscription copies can be ordered by calling 0330 4030066 or by emailing [email protected]. Vouchers, to be exchanged at retail sales outlets - our newsagents need you, too - can be subscribed to by contacting subscriptions on 0330 1235950 or by visiting www.localsubsplus.co.uk where you should select The Yorkshire Post from the list of titles available.

If you want to help right now, download our tablet app from the App / Play Stores. Every contribution you make helps to provide this county with the best regional journalism in the country.

Sincerely. Thank you.

James Mitchinson

Editor