Comments on: MRSA

By: Bev hurst

Bev hurst — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:23:49 +0000

the government figures are false they do not include in the stats the SURGICAL SITE WOUNDS nor do they include death by MRSA but not mentioned on death certificates i would imagine if all the MRSA INFECTED CASES were counted then the government could not say there had been a slight fall in the figures…MRSA means MRSA it does not mean SLIGHT MRSA whenever MRSA is mentioned on patients notes then it SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE STATS but it is not it is totally ignored as are the patients and their families needs and wishes…we are still being told be medical staff MRSA IS NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT….so much for freedom of information..what that really means is the government are free to inform us of nothing

By: PapaLazzzaru

PapaLazzzaru — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 03:44:07 +0000

"Firstly, it had been a problem that had been in gestation for a long time, but secondly, we were beginning to take the measures that were needed to address it"

So the problem has been in gestation for a long time (no doubt since Michael Howard was last in office…) but it was only today that "there were two new initiatives to help that trend continue". Surely an admission that the government has for a long time sat on its arse and done nothing until a scandal hit the fan the other day?

By: Roger Huffadine

Roger Huffadine — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:36:27 +0000

No - the important thing today was to answer the question.

"Why was the UK so late in taking action against MRSA?"

ummmm…… pause ……

Answer

Because this government has taken its eye off the ball of domestic politics, doesn’t give tuppence for individual lives, and didn’t want to spend the money.

However now that fudging the figures to show an improvement might win votes we have an announcement that we are winning the battle against MRSA.

hooray