But the problem is both parties refuse to acknoledge there is a fundemental sickness in the NHS.

Labour focuses on the superficials while the Tories prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem at all.

But you can't blame the parties, they only reflect what the public is thinking. And half the public thinks the NHS is perfect, and the other half thinks it's perfection is being ruined by not throwing enough money at it.

One of the things which will come out of this will be capacity issues. But as Brian says, the whole structure needs looking at - those systems which had the highest capacity at the outset, were those modeled on social insurance.

Social insurance is a far better system than state owned and controlled - it provides for diversity, with both private and public providers part of the same system, plus over capacity is built in. The patient is in the driving seat, since the money follows the patient rather than being allocated on some theoretical basis. It is market driven, but everybody is included and nobody has to pay at the point at which they actually need care. It appears to combine the best parts of the private and public sectors.

I think the public is better than this, the problem is more about leadership.

 Agree with this.

I do think a main issue is that the public views insurance/privatization as dangerous.

The problem is they are right, to some extent. The PFI scheme under labour was a disaster. And the US insurance led system is a disaster. But we are also a disaster and we have moved away from both.

It's like immigration, we need to stop seeing it in dichotemous good/bad terms. Privatization and insurance are just tools like anything else and they can be used competently or incompetently. Few things are so broadly good or bad.

But both parties refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem for different reasons. The Conservatives because they know the NHS is seen a national treasure and Labour because they can keep using the NHS as a stick with which to beat the Conservatives. 

It needs to be taken out of the political arena and given to experts in the field of health and social care.

Exactly this.

If it's an escaped  biological weapon, it's a pretty piss poor one.  Most biological weapons kill most of those that encounter them.  The spread is also augmented by being able to catch them by breathing them in long after the carrier has departed the area.   This one needs  water around it to survive.

Agree. The reason why this is difficult is because it first requires an acknowledgement that the NHS is not the "envy of the world". Until the electorate crunch that cookie they can't be moved on to the main course. It will require a brave politician to move the debate forward.

I disagree, politics always reflects the soul of the public. And the parties are simply vessles for differences in public opinion. If you want the leaders to strive towards better policy then you have to, first, change the minds of the public (or at least enough of them such that the position becomes politically relevant). Think about religion and it's lack of influence in politics. That has nothing to do with the irreligiousity of our leaders but of our public. Compare to America where religion plays a key role in politics because it also plays a key role in the public psyche. The same holds for any issue.

Look at abortion, no one cares about it in the UK (outside of NI) because there is no big abortion debate going on amongst the british people and therefore there is no concomicant political debate.

I don't think a couple of slogans constitute a successful long term planning CV. I think his" let the elderly die" concept was never going to be one his more popular slogans.  He doesn't have proper science focus, his degree is in modern and ancient history. I fail to see why he is supposed to be some sort of messiah of the people. His background implies he hasn't mixed with many.    His father is a land owner/farmer and his uncle is/was former Lord Justice of Appeal and his wife is daughter of Sir Humphrey Wakefield of Chillingham Castle. He went to a posh independent school in Durham before going to Oxford. So just an everyday bloke , really.

To be clear, we are talking hypotheticals here, I don't want anyone thinking I'm a conspiracy theoriest and I do not believe this is an escaped bio weapon. However to indulge the hypothetical:

I'm not sure this is true. If it was an escaped lab virus it doesn't mean it was the finished product. Could conceivably be an escpaed experiment as part of the process towards developing a bioweapon. I mean COVID does, indeed, have some desirable characturistics if, indeed, that was your aim.

The only point I'm making is, somewhere someone, will have done this. It is not impossible or inconceivable that there may one day be an escaped bioweapon we have to contend with. And of course, if/when that day comes no one will take that prospect seriously and they shouldn't because there will be no evidence of it!

I remember reading a while back about the French system and was impressed. Not so sure now as there isn't much evidence it is coping better than ours. Or is it actually? Haven't seen so much about them as Soain and Italy.

You could have worked  just from his name - Dominic

I know it's a generalisation, but the only "Doms" I have ever met have been silver spooned Public School Boys.

That's exactly what good leadership does (instead of just following or even dumbing down public opinion).

How can you give it to yourself?!

W*nking does of course help boost white blood cells, probably why I never get ill

If you are reffering to soundbytes and slogans what you have to understand is that the majority of the british public are unengaged.

If you find these slogans tiresome then you are in a tiny minority that is engaged enough to recognized how much they are overused. Dumbing down policy to a few vacuous slogans is the only way to reach the vast majority of voters. That's just the unfortunate reality.

Every single person on UIA falls into that tiny minority of 'overengaed' voters.

Just change the name of National Insurance to Health Insurance and add a few percent.

Yes, but my point is that you cannot wait for the public to get there first, it has more to do with good leadership. Large parts of the public are 'unengaged' as you say, but they are not stupid and they want the best for them and their families.

For an American style system, it would be about 200%. We'd also need to forego universal coverage.

My beer consumption has fallen dramatically since Friday week before last. I don't like drinking alone and last night I only had one can! I have been walking miles every day and making multiple "essential" shopping trips to Tesco, just to relieve the boredom. 

My belly has gone down already, so perhaps this nonsense is a silver lining for my health

The RNA sequence can be compared to other viruses making it fairly certain where it came from. 

I think all of this comes down to a fundemental understanding of the pros and cons of central planning vs market forces.

Each are good at different things.

Market forces are good at 'predicting' what maximises demand but poor at aligning an objective where the consumer is incapable of judgeing quality whilst central forces are terrible at predicting consumer habbits but great at broad policy objectives.

The ideal system of government plays both to their advantages and coveres their flaws. In a sense the capitalism/socialism debate is wrong because it is based on the false premise that one is superior to the other. That is not true, they are both good but good at very different things.

In healthcare you want to find a way where you can align the broad objectives of improved healthcare for everyone (regardless of income) with the selective improvement that can come from market forces. It's a hard problem, but if it can be solved then everyone benefits.

I still think not much will change after this crisis, it will be forgotten relatively quickly (in just a few years).

I agree. My hope is that Cumming's whitehall revolution might be a start in the right direction though. The idea of more blue sky thinking and focus on long term problems (rather than just those that span the election cycle) seems like a necessary first step.

Regardless something really needs to be done about whitehall. Far too many twenty something oxford PPE graduates.