What is happening to health in this wonderful country of ours?

[NeMo]

I dont know any statistics on elapsed time between CP and Shingles onset, but in my case (statistical sample of one) it was about 35y,, soooo, you may be lucky 63+35=98
(or not!!!)

The NHS states that about 1 in 4 people (in the UK) will develop shingles.

However, it should be stressed that most of these people will be over 70. When you have had chickenpox, the virus remains in your body. It is normally dormant inside your nerve cells. So long as your immune system is healthy, it will prevent the virus becoming active again. People who get shingles usually have a weakened immune system, hence this disease being, mostly, a disease of the elderly. Anything else that weakens the immune system, such as chemotherapy or even severe long-term stress, can also allow the chickenpox vaccine to become reactivated, and so cause shingles.

There is a shingles vaccine on the NHS for those over 70, being the most at-risk group.

There is a discussion among doctors about whether offering a chickenpox vaccine to children would actually make shingles more common. The 'memory' white blood cells that provide you with immunity only last for up to 10 years. So once you have had chickenpox, you need to be periodically exposed to the chickenpox to regenerate a new generation of these memory cells. Ordinarily this happens whenever an adult encounters a child who has the chickenpox virus, in a sense 'topping up' your memory cells so they don't run down. If you immunise all the children in the UK, there'd be fewer encounters with the virus, and the adults would gradually lose their immunity. This, in turn, would mean that the chickenpox virus inside their nerve cells could become active again, leading to shingles.

Cheers, NeMo

[Railwaygun]

the good news about being a GP is that you are never short of customers!

the bad thing is so bad that 700 GPs left the service last year, and most GPs can only stand it if they work part-time.

[Railwaygun]

the bad thing is so bad that 700 GPs left the service last year, and most GPs can only stand it if they work part-time.

Were those 700 also part time ? ! we need to know !!
I think mine does 3 days a week and one of those is only a part day
But it does have the advantage that I get to see others in the practice, so it is an auto-second opinion service 
So if those 700 who left were also only about 1/2time they would be equivqlent to 350 full time GPs.

How many GPs thought it enough good fun to remain ?

and how many new entrants were about to be surprised at what they had begun ?

No GPs were harmed in the preparation of this analysis

And my GPs, and all the local NHS are absolutely top notch first class and cannot be praised highly enough.  I should know having needed them quite a lot these past few years, including one by helicopter ! - no dont ask, it isnt something for one's bucket list

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-practice-life-news/qualified-gp-workforce-shrinks-by-almost-700-in-12-months/20037840.article

The number of fully-trained full-time equivalent GPs working in the NHS in England has continued to decline, with a reduction of almost 700 between September 2017 and September 2018.

Official figures from NHS Digital show that there has been a decrease in the number of substantive FTE (Full Time Equivalemt) GPs - excluding registrars - from 28,874 last year, down to 28,278.

the official figures show no change, but include GP registrars (in training) and F1 Drs (yr 1 after qualification getting GP experience) ie not experienced GPs.

the situation is dire, and will not improve, even after B***T when many more EU drs/nurses/care staff  are likely to leave the service.

Be careful what you wish for

[Newportnobby]

Quite frankly - NO.
Sorry to say you are being borderline offensive in dissecting someone's post in that way IMO.
Free speech and all that applies to all.
What started off as a discussion about illnesses in my youth compared to today is getting into realms I'd never have thought, such as attacking the NHS.

[daffy]

Personally I think this thread has gone awry. A shame, because it could have been so much more.

[NeMo]

Sorry to say you are being borderline offensive in dissecting someone's post in that way IMO.

Must have missed something! Sounds exciting, but scrolling upwards not really seeing (or at least understanding) anything nearly this entertaining!

Free speech and all that applies to all.

The thing about free speech is that people often assume it applies to them rather than the other guy. More to the point, free speech also implies taking responsibility for what your words cause to happen.

What started off as a discussion about illnesses in my youth compared to today is getting into realms I'd never have thought, such as attacking the NHS.

Not sure where the NHS bashing was. But in any event, to summarise, yes, your perception health is worse now than it the past was largely incorrect because you weren't aware of much of the mortality and morbidity of the time, but yes, fitness has declined somewhat as people's lives have become less active. On the other hand, allergies have increased, for reasons unknown, even as the incidences of childhood diseases such as polio and whooping cough have declined almost to zero. You can probably lock up this thread now! ;-)

Cheers, NeMo

[daffy]

Perhaps @daffy  would like to steer us in a particular direction, lest we stray further awry ?

Ha ha! . Only too happy to oblige.

Food allergies and intolerances are something close to my heart. While it has been proven that I don't have any actual allergies, such as to peanuts, I do have rather annoying and life affecting intolerances to many food items. These range from sugars, to wheat products (not gluten intolerance), coffee, alchohol, spices, acidics like grapefruit, onion, and vinegars, and a whole panoply of others.

All in all these seriously affect my everyday living, usually giving me sleepless nights, nerve irritations, headaches, feelings akin to 'the flu', and an overall tiredness that at times renders me pretty well useless.

These problems stem from a long term illness in the 1970's, and a second and far more profound illness that had its genesis in 1990. Without the amazing scientific developments in the understanding of the human body's complex systems and processes, particularly over the last twenty years or so, I would have no real insight into what was making me feel so ill.  I now know that I have a compromised immune system, and that my IgE (Immunoglobulin E ) count is considerably above the norm. Further, tests have been carried out to identify many of the triggers that can lead to my symptoms, and through such I am beginning to live what is often called a 'normal' life.

There is a long way to go before the scientists and medics get a full handle on such matters, an understanding of just what it is that leads one person's sytems to react in the way mine do, while others show no such symptoms, but instead thrive on the very foods that lay me low. In days gone by I wonder how many who have shared my symptoms in varying degrees would have simply been seen to be merely 'sickly'.

So that's just me. I see all the new names emerging to describe this and that condition, be it a syndrome or otherwise, and think how refreshing it must be for all those who, until that naming, and by inference, recognition of their particular condition, finally see some light at the end of their particular dark tunnel.

[NeMo]

Free speech is almost as peculiar as "being offensive". I dont think it is possible to give offense (unless one does something that is agin the law of the land ), it is only possible to "take offense".

Indeed, it is often said that people choose to take offence, implying that it is their fault that are offended, or their desire to be a martyr. But if you recall, I also said that free speech involves taking responsibility. If you have offended somebody (even if you don't think it's your fault) then the humane thing to do is enquire how you hurt their feelings, and to offer apologies for that fact, even if you stand by your original point.

Oftentimes people confuse free speech with being crass or tactless. Everyone is free to express their opinions; nobody has the right to be rude or cruel in doing so.

Cheers, NeMo

[NeMo]

In which case I would have expected a rebuke in private also, with the opportunity to sort it proper !

It's a public forum, so you can't realistically assume that apologies (or any other sorts of discussions) would be done in private. Otherwise it's a bit like 'The Daily Mail' printing a scandal on the front page, but then finding out they were wrong and apologising in a letter sent privately. For sure they'd *like* to do that, but in terms of press standards, we also would expect them to print an apology in their newspaper -- though very rarely, sadly, are such made on the front page, and more likely towards the bottom of p. 94!

Cheers, NeMo

[Newportnobby]

I think this has run its course. If anyone disagrees please PM me.