According to The Health Protection (Corona Virus) (Restrictions) Regulations 2020
Regulation 6
(1) During the emergency period no person may leave the place where they are living without a reasonable excuse
(2) For the purposes of (1) above, a reasonable excuse includes the need -
(a) to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household ....
(c) to seek medical assistance including access to any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2
....
Schedule 2
37. Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths, and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health.
38. Veterinary Surgeons and pet shops.
Written by
holyshedballs
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Totally agree with you but our surgery has put out a message that nobody can ask for more than their usual amount "because we don't want to get like the supermarkets".
We have 3 First Responders who are picking up prescription items and dropping them off at the homes of those vulnerable/elderly who have no-one else to do it, this is on top of doing their normal jobs. Goodness knows how these vulnerable/elderly are now getting their actual prescriptions if they don't have a computer because we now have to email for repeats, we are not allowed to ask for repeats over the phone, it must be in person at the surgery or through posting the repeat form in the box at the pharmacy. I expect there are volunteers they can ring, many people have volunteered their services for all sorts of things. Then the volunteers will have to queue outside the pharmacy just to drop the prescription in the box.
"because we don't want to get like the supermarkets".
Most if not all of the big supermarkets have dropped the quantity restriction thing now I believe. It's all been somewhat contradictory. Go out shopping etc as infrequently as possible (I heard a politician said once a week maximum), but don't buy more than x amount of anything and definitely don't stockpile.
When I dropped off my Dad's shopping on Monday I noticed he had a prescription delivered through his letter box. I did not ask who was delivering it to him but I assume the pharmacy he uses is doing it. Him and his wife do not use a computer so I presume he did it by telephone. They both have long term illnesses for heart disease and thyroid disease and need repeat prescriptions.
Levothyroxine Tablet Products: A Review of Clinical & Quality
Considerations
07 January 2013
9. Levothyroxine should be prescribed and dispensed in quantities covering three months supply, where appropriate, in order to address issues of continuity of supply and also to improve convenience to patients.
Surely the opinion of the Commission on Human Medicines should have sufficient weight to overcome petty local objections?
The duties of the Commission which came into being on 30 October 2005 are set out in Section 3 of the Medicines Act 1968, as amended by the Medicines (Advisory Bodies) Regulations 2005 and include the following:
to advise ministers on matters relating to human medicinal products (except those that fall under the remit of Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products (ABRH) and Herbal Medicines Advisory Committee (HMAC))
to advise the licensing authority (LA) where the LA has a duty to consult the Commission or where the LA chooses to consult the Commission including giving advice in relation to the safety, quality and efficacy of human medicinal products
to consider representations made in relation to the Commission's advice (either in writing or at a hearing) by an applicant or by a licence or marketing authorisation holder
to promote the collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions for human medicines (except for those products that fall within the remit of ABRH or HMAC) for the purposes of enabling such advice to be given.
(I know it doesn't and they will still complain and refuse.)
so glad that my surgery does scrips every 2 months, electronically. Mine now come in the post from online pharmacy that can supply the T3 that I can tolerate. I count myself very lucky indeed. A monthly scrip for a long term condition is an absolute nonsense, especially if you have to have several items and they are not all in stock. You can then spend your life traipsing backwards and forwards for stuff. The Q's at our local pharmacies are horrendous,. So much for keeping folks indoors
A few months ago iasked my surgery for 3 months supply per prescription.
I said it didnt matter how much I got per prescription because I wasnt paying for it i.e. not cost considerations for only paying £9:00 per item. £9:00 per month as opposed to £9:00 every 3 months.
I reminded them that the use by date is much longer than 3 months
I said it is cheaper to pick up 3 months 4 times a year than 1 month 12 times a year
and more convenient to pick up 4 times a year rather than 12 times a year.
They agreed and i normally get 3 months supply.
this morning I wentto pick up my normal prescription. I had 3 x 100mcg and 1 x 50mcg.
Normally 3 x 100 and 3 x50.
looked at the prescription and there was 84 x 100 and 28 x 50.
I went back to the surgery and they said that the govt said we can only have 1 months supply. They said there is clearly a mistake and hopefully I'll get my 3 months. If not, its not a major problem for me to pick up every month until the emergency is over.
Would you believe, we still are getting visitors here. Yesterday I took my dog down to the harbour, about 200 metres from my home, strolling along the harbour up towards the prom were 2 visitors with back packs on (no locals would be walking around like that). Then yesterday afternoon, and again this morning, a party of 4 people were walking from the car park towards the beach. Where are the police? Too busy looking out for the local Tradies to see if they are out and about in their work vans!
You're allowed out for a cycle ride, so I suppose the visitors with back packs just possibly could have cycled there. But four people walking from the car park surely can't be right. Mind you, I have to admit to being insanely jealous of everyone who lives within walking distance of such a beautiful beach! I really would so love to be able to paddle my feet in the sea and feel the sand between my toes, especially when the warmer weather hits.
The Regulations say we can leave home to take excercise either alone or with a member of our household. the qualifier is "without reasonable excuse"
So the problem the Police are facing is deciding what is reasonable.
General advice has been variable to say the least.
But our rule of thumb is half an hour to an hour depending on what you are doing and your level of fitness and to do it in the locality so you are not making an unnecesary journey.
As you appear to know the point about journeys is that not the distance travels but the likelihood of an accident requring the emergency services. there is the risk of infection from the driver the services and vice versa and then the pyramid of infection from those people. so drive somewher to take excercise is not reasonable in my view.
Carrying out essential repairs is a reasonable excuse, but we think making a journey to buy some tester paints is not reasonable. Thats not an essential repair.
With new rules , it takes time for what is allowed under the rules to be established. There are always people who test them so we can find the boundaries.
The 'you might have an accident' whilst driving somewhere to exercise is, I think, questionable. I am certainly not wishing to start an argument over this, but because I was always under the impression that statistically, you're more likely to have an accident in your own home, I did a quick google. First hit brought me to this from August '19:
In the UK every year, almost 6,000 people die in home accidents and 2.7million visit their local accident and emergency departments seeking help.
Similar to the rest of the UK, Scotland has a challenge to reduce the number of people killed and injured in the place we all believe should be safe - our own homes. People who spend more of their time at home suffer proportionally more accidental injuries, i.e. the very young and older people. rospa.com/Home-Safety/UK/Sc...
Not arguing, honestly, but we're in corona virus times so the emphasis is to limit contact rather than reduce accidents and reduce unnecessary journeys to stop people inadvertently infecting people they wouldn't/shouldn't come into contact with otherwise.
Infecting first responders because of an unnecessary journey is dangerous and irresponsible. They have to deal with other people so the risk of reinfecting them is much higher.
However, I agree with your general point. The riskiest palce to be is at home.
One of the biggest worries about lockdown is the risk of an increase in domestic violence
Hence the reasonable excuse of taking excercise is to help people cope with being cooped up.
Also peolpe who normally are at work during the day are at home. Local Authorities are already recieving complaints about Anti Social Behaviour caused by some people who were in work and are now at home are playing TV s games consoles and other noise making equipment at high volumes.
on the other side, there are people who are normally at home without neighbours being present who are complaining about new noises in the neighbourhood.
Then as accidents in the home occur, some people will have to go to hospital where the risk of infection is higher.
Ultimately, the courts decide on what is reasonable and this guide us by way of case law.
RE. accidents - cant stop being a pedant and should stop here ....but,
Again, the reason for stoppng unnecessary journeys is not to reduce accidents but to reduce unnecessary contacts.
it doesnt matter if you are 10 feet or 10 miles from your star point if you are having to call out 20 first responders who can be infected by your as yet undiagnosed or unsymptomatic coronavirus, who can in turn pass on the virus to their nearest and dearest.
I agree with you. I haven't seen anyting to suggest that existing prescriptions should be altered. It frustrates me that some of the people we are told to trust tell us things that arent true so easily.
Funny you should say that. I work in Public Health. Senior mangagement are having meetings everyday with regulators and other relevant agencies to co-ordinate our responses. We are designating key workers and allocating roles and responsibilities. Current buzzwords are "fluid" and "dynamic". We are discussing what is reasonable under current situation every day. The situation changes on a daily basis.
I agree. I think the mindset of "doctor knows best" is lingering in some surgeries and hospitals. when challenges on things they very quickly revert to that or say its the law. Just like when someone is asked to do something they dont want to do, it can be an easy response to say "oh, its health and safety - I cant do it" when there is no such H&S thing at all.
Its hard to challenge doctors at the best of times but we can do that if we have the confidence of knowing our facts, which is why this site is so good. Most people respond positively if they are politely but firmly questioned on a decision, backed up with a reasoned argument filled with facts.
.... a car journey to supermarket would be a reasonable excuse and therefore not an unnecessary journey.
Re pulling cars over on the motorway. I can easily understand the thought process of the Police.
The basic message is:
STAY AT HOME
Reasonable excuse journeys should mostly be in the locality
So almost by definition a car on a motorway is not in its owners locality and is liekly to be making an unnecessary journey.
As we havent developed mind reading technology yet, I think that asking a a driver of an ordinary car if his/her journey is necessary is legitimate. if it turns out that it is legitimate, only a few minutes is wasted and the driver can go on his/her way. The Regulations say that people can leave theri homes to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person. A vulnerable person is also defined in the Regulations as a person aged 70 or over or a peson under 70 who has an underlying health condition including but not limited to the conditions listed in Schedule 1
These are:
chronic heart disease
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease
chronic neaurological disease
diabetes
problems with the spleen
weakened immune system
being seriously overweight with BMI of over 40
so driving out for a chat with your mum who is 65 and in good health is not exempt from the Regulations and the STAY AT HOME message. Therefore in my view, the Police are enforcing the law proportionately if they ask motorists about their journey. As with every group fo people, there will be those who are good it and those who need additional training.
Dying a lagoon in a nature spot is NOT reasonable. In my view.
What is a reasonable excuse is initially decided by the body enforcing the Regulations.
Clearly the officer has to have clearly defined reasons to arrive at such a judgement. As this is all new there is very little guidance or case law to cover most situations. As you point out, professional bodies are now drafting guidance.
So if a Police officer thinks that someone has left their without a reasonabel excuse, s/he can offer "words of advice", issue a Fixed Penalty Notice or direct that person to return to their home. But the Regulations say that such and instruction must be necessary and proportionate.
REASONABLE, NECESSARY and PROPORTIONATE appear in a wide range of legislation. this is because legislation cannot cover every circumstance and regulators and eforcers have to make that decision.
If the recipient of that FPN thinks that the FPN was unreasonable they can not pay it and take th case to court where the decision of regulator or enforcer can be challenged.
Similarly, if a person given a direction fails to comply with, they can argue their case in court.
Supermarkets sell all sorts of things that would never be classified as food ranging from foil, washing up liquid, to DIY kit, clothes, and so on (see Aldi and Lidl special offers for prime examples).
Just what are the limits?
Boots staff are currently complaining that customers are allowed to wander round (and buy) perfumes and hair dye. Earlier they had been cordoned off but that was removed.
What you are talking about is nothing to do with H&S law. Most activivites can be carried out with reasonable H&S control measures in place.
Things like children not playing conkers is a H&S myth or some overprotictive parents or teachers wanting their little darlings to not cry when a conker touches their little mittens!!
you need to lookat the insurance industry for the source of most of the so-called H&S restricitions. They require a lot of things that are nothing to do with a suitable and sufficent risk assessment.
Case in point - house alarms. They are supposed to alert neighbours who will call the police to say that a house is being burgled. No one does that. then the alarms go on for ages causing a nuisance to t he neighbourhood.
If it wasnt for insurance compaines demanding that houses have them or they wont insure them there would only be a few in existence. Nothing to do with H&S all to do with insurers notwanting to pay out.
School trips - HSE gave advice to schools that proveded they have suitalbe and sufficent risk assessment and PPE, kids can go mountain climbing skiing, you name it.
But school checks with the insurance and the astronomical premiums and decides to cancel the canoing holiday. Not H&S, but insurance.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Transitioning from 150mcg of Thyroxine to Metavive help please
Latest bloods, appointment to review first months of T3 trial with endo looming
ITT Campaign 1st Article Published 
Draft letter for your own medical records
The scandal of Staffordshire and patient's not listened to
