JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I believe UCH in London regularly puts people undergoing chemotherapy up in a nearby hotel - it's cheaper than a hospital bed and they are less likely to catch something nasty than in hospital.
Marine life worse off inside 'protected' areas, analysis reveals Findings expose ‘big
- Thread starter dgadee
- Start date
I believe UCH in London regularly puts people undergoing chemotherapy up in a nearby hotel - it's cheaper than a hospital bed and they are less likely to catch something nasty than in hospital.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Most London hospitals (and I assume elsewhere as I know Southampton does) have non hospital accommodation, usually funded by charities to be used in this way either by patients who don't need full hospital service but need to be close by, or for relatives who don't live locally.
Remember London hospitals deal with patients from around the country and therefore not in daily travel distance. Much the same reason for Southampton as it is a regional centre for cardiac services with a catchment area running from Brighton to Exeter. Similarly my transplant took place in Bristol, average 2 1/2 hours drive. Off site accommodation available there, although I managed my 3 times a week check ups for the first month using a hospital provided taxi.
Excellent article on GOSH in the Telegraph magazine last Saturday which covered this type of issue among many others that surround dealing with children with rare conditions that need long term care.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
The London one was a bit different, I think, because it was for people undergoing daily chemo who would normally have stayed in hospital, but instead stayed across the road. Not quite the same as putting up those who have travelled a long way for a one-off outpatient appointment, but related. And an excellent idea, because people really should not be in extremely expensive hospital beds unless they need immediately available medical care and staff.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Think it is quite common, and an example was explained in the article I referred to. It was the same at Bristol with transplant patients who had travel difficulties for their frequent visits post transplant but did not need the hospital bed. A sort of halfway house.
Hospitals have all sorts of ways of dealing with patient needs, particularly with rare conditions. We don't hear much about them because the usual hospital conversation is dominated either by the "factory" end or the bed blockers.
As you say an excellent idea but often relies on charitable resources. In my two major spells in the system I was amazed at the level of support available from voluntary sources - not that I needed it, although the three times a week spending 3 hours a day in a taxi (over Christmas 2 years ago) were "taxing".
Heckler
Well-Known Member
There is a paper somewhere that tells the story of the protected zone around Lundy in the Bristol Channel. A no take area for shell fish. However the researcher found that the shellfish population had got bigger, they lived closer together and of course they fight for territory. So they had damage done to their shells and parasite infection. The law of unintended consequences. The researcher took some flack from the conservationists. Managed take is better than no take!
rotrax
Well-Known Member
I my part of the country we have far too many Badgers-the decline of the Hedgehog population and the increasing numbers of road kills of badgers is evidence for this.
Red kites are getting ever more numerous-40 years ago they were re-introduced around Stokenchurch and have multiplied rapidly.
To the extent in towns they are becoming a nuisance. Urban living is easier, so they pick over rubbish and carrion for an easier life. They have expanded past Swindon to the West, are almost at Winchester to the South, well past Dunstable to the East and almost at Towcester to the North-just by my observations while motoring. Buzzards are being pushed out and the bloody things over Didcot screech all day long and cause owners of small dogs to clutch them to their breasts!
No wonder hundreds of years ago it was written in law that if you saw one you had to try to kill it.
They are a splendid bird, but a surfeit of red kites is affecting other wildlife, and humans.
We have the advantage of many European countries of well managed wildlife. Far more birds and beasts are regularly seen in the UK than many nearby countries.
Like all things it requires a balance. No doubt this will be achieved in the future.
A couple of miles from where I write this, between Island Bay going West around the coast past Owhiro Bay is a marine reserve-cant remember the name-which has strong enforcement. There is no sign of any rod fishing from the shore and small boats never stop in the area with rods out and there are no Cray pot markers. I have seen the fishery officers with the bino's out checking for infringement. There is a diving club that take the opportunity to use the marine life waters of the reserve as a showcase for its new recruits-no spear fishing, just observation and photography.
Which is as it should be. To the East is Wellington Harbour, free to fish just about anywhere and plenty of fish. Kawahai and Kingfish prolific at the moment, Snapper coming in a bit too.
Conservation is important when a species is suffering, but when-or if perhaps-it recovers, management is the next step.
As Skipper Stu says, managed take is better than no take.
IMHO, of course.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Perhaps what happens is the population starts to balance out with their environment. Eventually the protected species develop sufficient numbers and the excess move out of the area and start to populate new areas. This has been witnessed and measured in many protected areas. Spectacularly so in USA, Gulf of Mexico where old oil rig jackets are laid on the seabed in designated areas. The repopulation of previously overfished areas, the increase in sports fishing and resulting tourism has been noticeable. There is a prohibition on fishing around the artificial reefs. In this case no take is better.
Heckler
Well-Known Member
All that was taken in to account when the paper was researched and written iirc. My post is based on scientific fact measured and recorded. Yours is just like the warmistas argument. Oh its been cold/warmer for the last few months etc etc
PS https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ce-of-A-Injury-B-Shell-disease_fig8_233915660
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
No, my post is based on recalling information presented on the effect of the manmade reefs in the GOM.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
It appears to say that in both areas the population has grown, more female egg carriers will populate other areas, damage is caused by the denser population, damage is caused by the increased completion for food (digging) and fighting (puncture wounds). In fact the article goes onto comment exactly what I said has been observed in the GOM.