Sacrificing England’s care home residents again

There are difficulties in making comparisons between the health statistics for Scotland and England so I welcome correction of any errors and will, of course, change this post if necessary.

However, today, the First Minister announced that, based on a report from the NRS, there had been 111 Covid-related deaths in Scottish care homes, in the seven days ending Sunday 24th January 2021.

The broadcast episode and the text will be published soon.

The ONS, using figures reported to it by the CQC and reported in the Mail, show there had been 1 705 such deaths in care homes in England, for the seven days ending Friday 22nd January 2021.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/numberofdeathsincarehomesnotifiedtothecarequalitycommissionengland

These are not exactly aligned periods of time but the phasing may favour the English homes.

England has 10 times the population of Scotland and all things being equal would be expected to have had roughly 10 times the Covid-related deaths in care homes, 1 110. Tragically it had 1 705, around 54% more.

If correct, that is a shocking indictment of the decision by the Conservative Government, to rollout out the vaccination programme to other groups, in parallel with the care home staff and residents, contrary to the JCVI advice and, almost certainly, to compete with EU countries.

At the moment, Scotland has vaccinated 95% of care home residents but England has only done around 66%. More important, however, by January 11th, Scotland had protected 80% but England had only protected 24%, leaving three -quarters exposed to the virus that would kill many of them by the following week.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-01-11/debates/FCE7E743-A654-4421-A1EA-5CF4C6512AFF/Covid-19Vaccinations

33 thoughts on “Sacrificing England’s care home residents again

  1. Unfortunately we have a media which is blind to such data. The Boris vaccine curves are now the only song.
    PMQ’s today highlighted the new ” Trumpian” message. His answer to every question is how great the vaccine rollout programme is.

    If only we had journalists instead of the Soundbite Twitter creed that now infest our lives.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. This isn’t particularly surprising, as English Torydum is ideologically opposed international law, including the Right to Health. Which means English Torydum’s approach to law and public policy is incapable of supporting public health or protecting the vulnerable. Much like the current SNP, if they don’t abandon support for genderwoowoo. Those with a problem accepting this analysis could do worse than checking out ” To empower or to protect? Constructing the ‘vulnerable adult’ in English law and public policy”.

    Like

  3. I have no doubt that Boris played the numbers game
    Because he knew full well that deaths would have broke thru the 100k sometime this week,headlines everywhere,so he badly needed good news as a fall back position
    Once he had been presented with the very limiting logistics associated with vaccinating
    Care home residents and staff,especially with the Pifzer vaccine,Geographical spread of care homes along with severe limitations to avoid further spread from care home to care
    Home
    Once he was presented by way of a spread sheet and horizontal program bar chart
    He would then have quickly realised that if such program adhered to ,that would lead to what would appear to be a very very slow vaccination roll out,all coinciding with the 100k death announcements
    So he obviously binned the protocol and advice given
    He simply did not want to fight on 2 fronts
    And lose both
    Meanwhile Nicola done the right thing and bravely took the usual assault daily from the merchants of Coital Bovine Scatology
    With regards the initial resulting numbers for Scotland
    In short she genuinely cares about life
    Whilst Boris could not give a F***k
    Indeed if you sought for him to repent
    His reply would upon failure to do so
    simply be
    I knew not of what you meant

    Liked by 1 person

  4. You would think these “Journalists” surely have families of their own, & would actually want what was best for them (that would be the TRUTH) before what is best headline for their editors. I hope this Scotland BAD attitude that keeps them in a job, comes back to haunt & HURT them big time..

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Yes and as noted,at the briefing today the 95% vaccination rate in care homes was stated by J Leith as astounding. 100% will probably never be achievable because:-
    Some residents or those having their power of attorney might refuse the jag.
    Some residents may be at end of life and the jag would not be appropriate as decided gy clinicians.
    Some care homes may have a current covid outbreak or recovering from one and the infection and control procedures in place may make it inappropriate for a vaccination programme to be rolled out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Pentlander
      95% success in any mass vaccination program
      Indeed is not only considered a resounding
      Result
      But is The Gold Standard
      And even more so given the very adverse logistics involved along with the very slow rate of vaccinating old inform residents many with severe dementia
      Such can only cause your time taken to do so to
      Increase by a factor of at the very least 2
      But probably far greater due to the very scattered hard to reach the outlying regions in the Highlands,Islands and Borders
      What Scotland has achieved so far is indeed
      A Shining beacon to all other Nations going forward
      NOW that is what i may refer to as real and genuine NEWS

      Liked by 2 people

  6. To put that another way, you’ll not enjoy the benefits of open democracy and good public health, when your government is hostile towards cognitive law and the biological rights of individuals (see Nazi Germany). Those who don’t recognise the dangers of standing under the parochial and dogmatic approach to the law that both our parliaments adhere to, could do worse than checking out “Public Health and Constitutional Law: Recognizing the Relationship.

    Like

  7. Though this topic falls directly within my area of ‘expertise’, I’m wary of posting more. Though those with an interest in defending their human rights from British constitutionalism, could do worse than checking out “DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW IN EUROPE”. As standing under Westminster’s unsubstantial claim to legal authority over Scotland, simply isn’t conducive with maintaining your health, a.k.a. your biological integrity.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Cameronb
      Why bother protecting against Westminster
      Merely as a subject of the Crown
      Whilst we can enact such as citizens of a Indy
      Scotland

      Like

        1. Cameron
          Indeed but with respect the point i was hoping to convey was that all our efforts should be
          Applied with relentless vigour to attaining
          What is rightfully ours
          As any effort aimed at Westminster in achieving basic rights of humanity would be akin to flogging a dead donkey
          And that is exactly why we are locked in as subjects regards them,which in turn means we simply must exercise our claim of right
          In order to become citizens within a Nation
          As opposed to mere subjects

          Liked by 1 person

  8. I know fine that you won’t need reminding from me that the best means of attempting comparisons is to use excess deaths. No doubt this awful number of deaths in England’s care homes will make worse England’s statistics compared with the other UK countries.

    https://ltccovid.org/2020/08/28/covid-19-mortality-and-long-term-care-a-uk-comparison/

    “Excess deaths are those deaths in excess of some measure of average or normal deaths over some comparable historic period. For deaths in care homes, we used average weekly deaths during the previous 5-year period. The absolute numbers of excess deaths were transformed to P-Scores by expressing excess deaths as the percentage increase over average historic deaths. This allows meaningful comparison between areas that differ substantially by size of population and record COVID-19 related deaths in different ways.

    Using this measure, we find that over our defined pandemic period England had a 38% increase in mortality compared with 29% in Scotland, 22% in Wales, and 20% in Northern Ireland. Breaking this figure down by location of death reveals a 79% increase in mortality over the pandemic period in English care homes compared to 62% in Scotland, 66% in Wales, and 46% in Northern Ireland. Thus, although Scotland had the highest proportion of care homes infected and the highest proportion of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in care homes, it had a lower proportion of excess deaths in care homes than in England or Wales. This may reflect differences in testing practices and death registrations across the nations. Northern Ireland had both the lowest share of care homes infected and the lowest level of excess deaths in care homes.
    Given that, due to the variation in testing procedures and recording of deaths, it will never be possible to unequivocally assign care home deaths during the pandemic to COVID-19 or other causes, the judgement on relative failure or success in handling the pandemic in care homes must ultimately rest with comparative performance in relation to excess deaths.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “There are difficulties in making comparisons between the health statistics for Scotland and England”

      There are all sorts of ‘difficulties’ here. On BBC 1’s ‘News at Six’ on 26 January a colour-coded map of Great Britain was shown. It plotted geographic variations in the number of Covid deaths per 100,000 population. My first impression was that the distribution of colour across Scotland, other than for the Highlands and Islands, looked not so very different from that in England.

      On a closer look at a frozen frame, I noted that the metric being mapped by the BBC was the number of deaths for which Covid had been ‘mentioned’ on a death certificate. I wondered why the more usual metric – namely, deaths ‘within 28 days of a positive test ‘ – was not being used in this case.

      There are statistics for cumulative deaths to date at national, regional and local level under both measures. These are provided on the UK government’s Covid data reporting website. But the degree of difference between the two measures of Covid deaths is very different in the four nations:

      England:
      deaths after a positive test = 156.4 per 100,000
      deaths with Covid ‘mentioned’ = 156.6 per 100,000

      NI:
      deaths after a positive test = 93.1
      deaths with Covid ‘mentioned’ = 112.4

      Scotland:
      deaths after a positive test = 106.1
      deaths with Covid ‘mentioned’ = 136.3

      Wales:
      deaths after a positive test = 144.7;
      deaths with Covid ‘mentioned’ = 186.1.

      So the differences in cumulative rate values under these two different measures for each of NI, Scotland and Wales are broadly similar. England is the very marked outlier: there is almost no difference. between its two values. Anyone know of an ‘official’ explanation?

      I wonder why the BBC didn’t plot the more commonly used ‘within 28 days of a positive test’ measure on its map?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’ve also been puzzled by England being an outlier when you look at the ratio of deaths with Covid ‘mentioned’ to deaths after a positive test. From your data, the ratio is1.001 for England and 1.285 for Scotland.

        This has been true for a long time, but I’ve not seen anyone else comment on it, or provide an explanation.

        It might be interesting to compare excess deaths, especially since data is available on those where Covid is mentioned or not mentioned on the death certificate. I’ve not done this properly yet but it’s worth noting, based on a quick look, that England seems to have a much higher proportion of excess deaths where Covid is not mentioned than Scotland. This quick look involved different time periods in the two countries, so more analysis is needed.

        Like

  9. English Torydum has been captured by the Radical Right, who’s ideological position isn’t a kick in the arse away from that of the Nazis. America has recently woken up to the threat this poses to constitutional democracy, so hopefully more Scots will wake up to the threat that contemporary British nationalism poses to their liberty and health.

    So those with an interest could do worse than checking out “Constitutional Cohesion and Public Health Promotion – Part II”, published by SAGE. Which points towards the core role that coherent cognitive law plays in supporting public health, and the joint role of structural and right-based principles in addressing the governmental vices of oppression, overreach, malfeasance, and tyranny.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Cameronb
      Once more i concur with you here and 100% so
      I have no doubts whatsoever that within the Tories ( which translates from Irish Gaelic to mean Robber/criminal ) and their affiliates exist many extreme
      Right wing and Nazis at that
      D.Cummings was a known advocate of Eugenics on the basis of deflating public expenditure
      But any Geneticist worth their salt shall inform you,that any state that with rigour adopts such a policy will
      Fail dramatically within 3-4 generations and in main due to eliminating very large chunks
      From the Human Gene pool which carry with them many a gene that is positively very useful
      In short you would well and truly be throwing the baby out with the bath water
      Further more if implemented it automatically
      begs the question of not only who decides but what genes do you wish to eradicate
      No doubt ending up way beyond the original
      Concept
      Mankind implements such a policy at the most direst of amplifying consequences to its very own survival and evolutionary success
      Tis akin to playing poker with the Devil

      Liked by 1 person

  10. “There are difficulties in making comparisons between the health statistics for Scotland and England”

    There are also many examples of where comparisons are not difficult at all to make but are simply NOT being published by the corporate media or the BBC. Here is but one example based on data from the UK government’s Covid data reporting website. It relates to information for the English regions on the cumulative number of deaths per 100,000 population to date.

    Using the measure for deaths ‘within 28 days of a positive test’, we learn that for Scotland the rate is 106.1 per 100,000. Only SW England has a lower rate (at 89.6 per 100,000). London has the second lowest rate amongst the English regions (at 141.1) – so, very much higher than Scotland’s rate. (The position of Scotland relative to the English regions in terms of rates is not changed under the ‘mentioned’ on a death certificate measure.)

    The two highest rates for the English regions are 185.4 and 195 deaths per 100,000 population. Note that these highest rates are for the English regions bordering Scotland, namely the NE and NW respectively.

    Like

    1. Does anyone know the outcome of North of England Covid patients being transferred to Scotland? My recollection is that they went Dumfries, but the number of patients transferred wasn’t disclosed at the time, nor was how they were being treated in the relevant regional stats. It’s all gone silent, so are there now no cross-border transfers or do they still continue but unreported?

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Vaccinating in care homes is important because natural immunity to disease is much lower in old age. This fully justifies the JCVI priority list, and the compliant vaccination program used in Scotland.

    It’s quite clear that BJ and his advisors panicked about the rapid pace of infections in their favoured regions of the UK (especially London and the SE) and decided to ignore the JCVI.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The Tories are ideologically opposed to public health ethics, as they promote social and environmental justice. Which is an anathema to contemporary English Torydum, and ‘our’ Lord Advocate, apparently. Who’s approach to the law and legal practice is simply not compatible with democracy. Anyone trained in administrative law could tell you that. Though “PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: EXAMPLE LESSONS” will provide far more insight than I ever could.

      Like

  12. premieroneuk
    Indeed, though we need a party the is capable of supporting open democracy and human rights, if we are to liberate ourselves from the state’s authoritarian over-reach. We also need a Lord Advocate who is capable of supporting open democracy and the rule-of-law.

    Like

  13. “If correct, that is a shocking indictment of the decision by the Conservative Government”
    Frankly it’s too early to make such a link when it takes so long for the vaccine to provide protection, but it will undoubtedly begin to show in coming weeks as a sharp decline in numbers, constituting as they do 88% of all mortalities.
    What it DOES show is SG’s continued focus on getting prevalence down and maximising infection control in care-homes has been and remains the best strategy.
    The devastating consequence of politics altering the science in England may have evaded proper scrutiny for now through Tory smoke and mirrors, but it cannot be maintained forever, the truth will eventually out.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. The last 5% Scotland vaccinate in care homes will be the most difficult to complete
    Wait and see
    England will complete 100% before Scotland and the headline in the news will be England win
    You can rest assured those Scottish care home owners we see regularly siding with the britnats to criticise the Scottish government
    will play their part

    Like

    1. Terence Callachan
      I doubt very very much if England attains 100 %
      Why because the very reason a high % of such
      Residents suffer from Dementia and require
      Legal dispensation, Therefore
      Many have Power of Attorney acting on their behalf
      Therefore their legal permission has to be sought and granted in order to vaccinate those that they act for
      This makes Scotland,s 95 % success even more remarkable
      Do any really believe that England will make
      Expeditious and concerted efforts to write to the Power of Attorney in all cases
      No they will not,Me thinks they will either merely issue a form To Whom it May Concern for signature to all care homes without any follow up
      If so it shall be none other than A Tick Box exercise, upon which their spin doctors may claim that all due effort was applied and in full knowledge that none of their lap dogs in the MSM will neither investigate or pursue
      They not only have placed their bets they have also hedged them
      All just as they do in the financial markets

      Like

      1. hello premieroneuk…yes legal permission is required but it does not have to be obtained in writing , verbal decision are acceptable and if permission was given in the past a doctor can make a decision.

        Given the way the media is reporting whatever Westminster say , even if they know it’s incorrect
        I’m sure that it will play out the way I described

        Like

        1. Terence
          Thanks for the clarification
          Nonetheless i believe Boris and his partners
          In crimes against humanity certainly will not
          Make strenuous efforts to quickly = the achieve of Scotland and its caring compassionate efforts in not only doing The Right thing but dovetailing such with the best science available in order to kill 2 birds with 1 stone
          Save lives and decrease virus prevalence and all in a orderly controlled manner

          Like

  15. I light of the SNP ludicrous approach to intersectional public policy, which was conceived so as to support the social position of natal women and ethnic minorities, and is vital to good public health management, folk could do worse than checking out “Making sense of ‘intersectionality’ A manual for lovers of people and forests”. As you can’t support good public health if you reject medical philosophy and bioethics, which is demanded by those who support the introduction of anti-foundational ideology into Scots law (see genderwoowoo). Ethical public law needs to be post-foundational, btw.

    Like

    1. CameronB Brodie ,it’s nonsense to say the SNP approach to intersectional public policy is ludicrous if you accept that much of the controls are held elsewhere.
      There is no doubt that much of the controls are held elsewhere.
      Skiffy…Westminster

      Like

    1. CameronB Brodie
      Cognition can be defined as the act or process of knowing in the broadest sense; specifically, an intellectual process by which knowledge is gained from perception or ideas, learning, thinking, memory, decision-making, and being aware.
      Law does not define cognition it merely uses the existing definition within the legal framework

      Like

  16. Only me, sorry. I only want to support the potential for justice in and for Scotland, so I thought folk might benefit from checking out “Health Disparities at the Intersection of Gender and Race: Beyond Intersectionality Theory in Epidemiologic Research”. Which is a peer-reviewed chapter in “Quality of Life – Biopsychosocial Perspectives”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.