argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend—indeed, my friend—for that point. The reason we are doing this is that we have been clear throughout, and the Prime Minister has been clear throughout, that this should be the last lockdown we experience and that, once we relax these restrictions, they should be irreversibly relaxed. That is why we are doing it in a staged way, one step at a time, and we will continue to monitor the data, which I hope and believe will continue to go in the right direction. But it is because we do not wish to see anything happen that could cause us to pause or reverse that we are taking it step by step.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What we have sought to do here is to set out a road map that is measured and cautious but provides, as much as we can, that degree of certainty to allow people to plan for the future. We do not want to set out expectations that are unlikely to be met, and therefore this plan is based on those "at the earliest" dates. If I may, I will make a bit of progress, and then, if we have time—I am conscious of the time—he may wish to return to that point We know how tough lockdown has been on people—on individuals, on families and on businesses—and naturally we are beginning—
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend see, as he is hearing from our hon. Friends here in the Chamber, that setting out the very earliest dates assumes there is no harm caused by the continued lockdown but, in reality, if we remain locked down when we do not need to, every single day, that is causing harm to people?
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Often in this Chamber we look at the impact in terms of hospitalisations, infection rates and deaths from covid, but—absolutely rightly—we also look at the impacts more broadly, and she highlights that it is not just deaths or illnesses directly attributable to covid that have an impact on people’s lives, health and wellbeing. However, I come back to the point that the programme and the dates we have set out are reasonable, pragmatic and supported by what we believe reflects the roll-out of the vaccine to the different groups, and they give the public a degree of predictability that has not been there before. I share what I surmise is her view: I would not wish these restrictions to stay in place a day longer than absolutely necessary—I hope I do not misattribute a view to her there. What the Prime Minister set out earlier today achieves that, and does it in a very measured and sensible way that reduces significantly any risk of our seeing things slide backwards I am conscious of time. As the Prime Minister has set out before the House, all schools and colleges will return to face-to-face education on 8 March—
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Andrew William Murrison (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much welcome my good friend the Minister’s remarks. The Prime Minister was quite right to say in his statement that there is no credible road map to zero-covid Britain, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who speaks for the Opposition, was right to say that this time has to be the last time—that is to say, this must be the last lockdown—so we need to explore with the public what that means In 2014-15, we lost 28,000 people to seasonal flu. Every year, we accept 78,000 deaths from the effects of smoking, but we do not seriously contemplate banning smoking despite the awful toll it takes. If there is no credible road map to zero covid, we need to explore with the public how many deaths every year they are prepared to accept from the virus and, potentially, others too. I do not know the answer to that, but perhaps the figures of 28,000 and 78,000 begin to give us some clue as to the parameters within which we can have that terrible, awful conversation. I do not envy my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in their position as decision makers in this process We should never waste a crisis. May I commend Ministers for trying to reboot public health at pace and very effectively? We need to prepare for the next crisis now, because this virus almost certainly will not be the last one. We need to start working up a workforce that will do vaccination in the future as the virus changes and evolves, perhaps capitalising on those NHS returnees who have done the courses mandated and done the paperwork but have yet to be called up. We need to maintain them on the books, as it were, because we will probably need them in the future I welcome the lifting of the lockdown. My only question is one of pace. Immunity is like a muscle or a brain cell: it improves with work, and if we do not use it we lose it. Circulation of virus in the vaccinated population will enhance immunity, and I worry that if we are too cautious in lifting lockdown once the great bulk of the population at risk is vaccinated, we will be more vulnerable than we need to be as we re-enter the high-risk winter season. The data on cases and deaths published today on gov.uk is unexpectedly good, and we should celebrate that, but will my hon. Friend review the dates cited today if the data support that Finally, I very much welcome the extra money my hon. Friend has provided for research into vaccines in February. It is most welcome. We may find that therapeutics—treating people who are seriously ill with the virus—turns out to be just as important in fighting the virus as immunisation.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): We craved a measure of urgency and what we got was caution. We have been told that the plan is to be driven by data. What data? From the very start, we were informed that the main effort—the aim—was to deliver the saving of lives by protecting the NHS, so the key data must be a level of hospital admissions with which the NHS can cope efficiently and effectively. But since then, we have seen mission creep to a level of daily infections, and the number of 1,000 a day has been touted. Given the level of testing and the ambition for even greater testing, were covid-19 to disappear tonight off the face of the earth, we would still have more positive test results tomorrow, as a consequence of even the most conservative estimate of false positives, that would prevent us from lifting the restrictions on that day The Minister has mentioned the unpredictability of the disease. We just heard a dissertation on that from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). In the ordinary course of events, a virus that is successful becomes more benign. The new variants—the ones that succeed—do not send their sufferers to bed. They keep them up and about, spreading it, but a lockdown reverses the terms of trade. The successful variant is the one that can get through the social distancing, is more potent and will get its sufferer into hospital, where there are much greater opportunities for spread. Anyone who is concerned about new variants should join us who are conscious of the need for urgency with respect to the huge economic and social costs of this lockdown, and join us because of the scientific urgency of getting the lockdown lifted as well.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) just said. I applaud the Government and everybody who has been involved in this incredible vaccine roll-out programme. It really is world leading and is going to make a huge difference in tackling the coronavirus. However, I urge colleagues in Government to think very broadly about this pandemic I want to give three examples from my constituency caseload. First, businesses have been supported, as have jobs, but the reality is that businesses cannot survive for much longer. I am thinking of the mental health of business owners, their personal savings, their families, the people that they have had to get rid of because they cannot keep them on furlough any longer—this cannot continue. There are huge costs not only in terms of the financial implications, but of their balance sheets—the constant roll-over of bank interest rates and so on, which has long-term implications for their prospects as a business Secondly, schoolchildren have already fallen so far behind. I had a constituency roundtable with headteachers, who were saying to me that it is always the same children. The ones who have great parents at home, getting them to keep working in spite of it all, will manage. It is those who do not have either the devices at home or the parental input who are really going to suffer and struggle, and not just this year or this month, but for years to come. It is existentially threatening to their lives The third point I want to make is about dementia sufferers. Someone very close to me has dementia and it has really destroyed their life. When it comes to people with dementia, we try to give them social input. We try to give them something to look forward to and try to keep them stimulated, and we are just not doing that. We are talking about one person to hold their hand—that is just not good enough. We have to think outside the box and look at what more we can do to help people to catch up right across all our country, all our nation I want to finish with an absolute plea to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make sure this place comes back, because I am hearing from hon. Friends and hon. colleagues across the Chamber about the vital need to keep scrutinising the Government, particularly as we come out of lockdown. We cannot be date-driven; we have to be data-driven. We need to keep talking about the harm that is being caused by the lockdown so that we get the balance right between saving people’s lives from covid and saving their lives from other things that are not covid but are related to covid.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Ian Levy (Conservative, Centre-right): Widely reported studies modelling the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on suicide rates have predicted dramatic increases, ranging up to 145%, with particular emphasis given to the effect of the pandemic on children and young people. Numerous surveys have highlighted that their mental health has been disproportionately affected relative to that of older adults, with a corresponding increase in suicidal thoughts and self-harm. All of us will have to struggle with our own mental health to some degree or other during this time, but there are various known risk factors that can impact on mental health, such as depression, feelings of unattachment, loneliness, domestic violence, child neglect and abuse, unemployment and other financial insecurity When, almost a year ago, we entered lockdown across the globe, there was some degree of optimism that this would be a quick process and before too long we would return to normal. The lockdown went on a lot longer than people thought it would, but the weather slowly improved and there was a reasonable sense of optimism that kept people going. The November lockdown was announced as being short, with Christmas and the hope of meeting up with loved ones as a promised reward at the end, if possible The current lockdown, however, has been very different. The post-Christmas dark days that hit many people every year have just seemed too much to bear for some. Dark days and cold weather have limited the opportunity for outdoor exercise for many. The absence of support from family has gone on too long. Children are missing school friends, and parents are missing support, often struggling to work while home-schooling their children Let me be absolutely clear: I have no doubt whatever that this lockdown, like others before it, was needed, but so many people have paid a very high price. Mental health across the generations has been severely impacted. All too often, people are struggling to see a way forward. The Prime Minister has today set out the way forward, and I hugely welcome it, but will he assure the House that although we will all be happy to see a relaxation of the lockdowns where possible, he will be guided by the science and do all he can to ensure that this truly is the last lockdown?
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish to start by saying some words of praise for Ministers and, indeed, everyone involved in the vaccination programme. It has been an extraordinary achievement and put us fully on the path back to recovery as a nation. But that is why I am, frankly, disappointed by what I have heard today. The path set out this afternoon is too tentative and does not adequately take into account the impact of this pandemic on our society as a whole. We needed to do more, quicker. We needed to identify those things that are the lowest risk and allow them to start again now. We needed to give those people, particularly among the younger generation, whose mental health is under intense strain or whose business prospects and job prospects seem hopeless the most rapid safe path back to normality For example, there is virtually no evidence that the virus transmits easily outdoors, so why do we need to wait a month before a group of four or six people can go for a walk in the park? Why do we need to wait a month before a small group of people can start to play outdoor sports again? What difference does it really make if someone drives 50 miles for a walk with a relative, as long as it is outdoors I have argued all along that the strategy to reopen should be based on a hard-nosed assessment of risk. We know that the virus transmits most seriously in a small number of settings—in hospitals, care homes, schools, workplaces and indoors in the home in particular—but it does not transmit easily in the park, on the beach, on a tennis court or in the hills, so why are we not unlocking the great outdoors now to ease the pressures on people and give them more space in their lives so that they can start to rebuild their mental strength, which has been through such difficult times? Where is the risk in letting pubs open their gardens again for Easter, or zoos open their outdoor areas to visitors, and start to rebuild their finances; or in a promise today to reopen air corridors to low-risk countries later in the spring, rather than a tentative review? A trading nation cannot close its borders indefinitely. However good the furlough scheme may be, the longer we wait to reopen, the fewer businesses and jobs will be there when that day comes This Government, the Prime Minister, his team and the Health Secretary have done an extraordinary job in getting us to where we are in vaccinations, but this country and this Government must not blow that now with an approach that takes caution beyond common sense. Lord Hague was right in saying at the weekend that when the top nine groups have had their jabs, we should be unlocking almost everything, but where we know the risks are low, we should be unlocking now.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-02-22
Topic: Health
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I begin by paying tribute to the NHS here in Buckinghamshire. Under quite extraordinary pressure, staff have continually risen to the challenge, and we should all be very proud of them We asked the Government for a road to recovery starting on 8 March, and I am pleased that they have now set it out, but the pace of change announced today will be a hammer blow for aviation, for pubs, restaurants, hotels, gyms and pools, and for the arts establishment. Once again, it seems to be modelling, not data, which is driving the Government’s decisions, even though, time and again, modelling used for serious covid decisions has been taken apart retrospectively. One of the four models used by the Government to illustrate the need for the second national lockdown predicted 1,000 deaths on 1 November, the day after it was presented to the public, when the actual number of deaths that day was just over 200. It has been reported that the road map is based on the new Imperial College modelling of the vaccine roll-out. Of course, as I know as a software engineer, what you put into a model determines what you get out of it. Well, the modellers have assumed that the uptake of vaccines for all groups will be 85%, when actually it has been 90%. They assume that there will be a drop in the uptake of the second dose of the vaccine to 75%, without any evidence. They assume that the vaccine’s efficacy in protecting against the risk of infection is 48% after one dose and 60% after two doses for both vaccines that we have available, but data from Public Health England shows that one dose reduces the risk of catching infection by more than 70%, rising to 85% after the second dose. These models really must be improved. I have said time and again that we need to drive up the standard of modelling. We need to introduce competitive expert advice with red team challenge, because experts are only human and we have been asking the impossible of them in the context of the challenges that they face I have said time and again that we need a new public health Act to learn from this crisis and make sure that the harms and the benefits of Government policy are properly assessed and that Parliament regularly has amendable motions before it. Thank goodness that in this document the Government have begun to acknowledge the socioeconomic cost of restrictions. The Government make it very clear that violent crime and drug addiction have gone up and that wellbeing has come down, with more anxiety and depression. They have been clear that the hardest hit have been the young, females, ethnic minorities and the lower-paid. That is why we need a new public health Act to ensure that our Parliament is properly informed so that never again do we impose these measures without knowing whether they will do more harm than good.
Out-of-hospital Care — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): The Health Secretary recently received a letter from a range of social care organisations and charities panning the spending review offer, saying it "is not sufficient to resolve the care funding crisis" and warning of an "increasing number of older people" without sufficient support, "increasing pressure on the NHS." Will the Health Secretary finally admit that the offer in the autumn statement is just not good enough?
Out-of-hospital Care — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): The report on the appalling failures at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust highlighted the fact that more than 1,000 unexpected deaths of mental health and learning disability patients, many of which took place outside hospital, had not been investigated. Given that the Health Secretary did not allow the House an opportunity to scrutinise those findings before Christmas, will he or the Minister respond today to the widely held concern that the experience of that NHS trust is not an isolated one? Does the Minister agree that a national public investigation is now needed?
GP Services — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Given the increasing difficulty that members of the public are having in getting an appointment with their GP quickly and at a time that is convenient to them, does the Secretary of State believe that his predecessor was wrong when, as one of his first acts, he scrapped Labour’s 48-hour GP access guarantee?
GP Services — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): Today I received a letter from the chair of Slough’s clinical commissioning group, in which he bemoaned the fact that GP practices were making 95% of patient contacts yet receiving only 8% of the NHS’s resources. He also claimed that there had been a 30% reduction in GP partners’ incomes in the past five years, and said that more and more GPs in Slough were turning to private practice. I have noticed that they are also resisting the creation of new GP practices. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that under-doctored areas such as mine get more GPs?
Hospital Trusts: Deficits — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): The University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust faces a deficit of £19 million for 2015-16, but until the NHS’s Staffordshire review is completed it faces uncertain prospects further out, not least as it has taken over Stafford county hospital recently. The hospital wrote to the Minister before Christmas, so will he meet hospital management and local MPs as soon as possible this new year to discuss this uncertain situation and the progress on the whole Staffordshire review?
Rare Diseases — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Same But Different, which is based in my constituency, is concerned about a number of the challenges faced by people with rare diseases. One key issue that it has raised with me is the level of support available at the time of diagnosis, particularly for parents of children with rare diseases. Will the Minister examine how we can signpost better help and support to those who have been diagnosed?
Rare Diseases — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): Patients living with rare cancers often have fewer treatments available to them. Often, the only option is to use off-label treatments. The cancer drugs fund has helped patients gain access to those treatments, but, despite a Conservative party manifesto commitment to continue investing in it, the fund is now under threat because of central Government cuts. What assurances will the Minister provide to people living with rare cancers that off-label drugs will still be funded? Will she apologise for the uncertainty that those cuts are causing to the thousands of people who are affected by cancer in England?
Social Care Budgets: A&E Attendance — House of Commons, 2016-01-05
Topic: Health
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): In any given week at the Countess of Chester hospital, 70-plus elderly patients pitch up and cannot be discharged because care is not available elsewhere. We know that the Government broke their promise before the election to sort out funding for long-term care, and the King’s Fund recently said that the settlement to which the Minister refers will put "even more pressure on … the NHS to pick up the pieces when there’s a breakdown in … care" Will the Minister now accept that that continuing neglect and those broken promises are the key cause of the crisis in our A&E departments?