corvi 19

[rob48]

What do you think he means exactly by "market forces" in this context?

Prior to this outbreak, belief in market forces had contributed to the degradation of our health service, despite the enormous commitment of its staff, as indicated by numerous studies based on data measuring quality and performance. It was barely managing to cope with our needs before the virus.

Am I reading it right, that you think the government is playing a blinder but is hampered by the inefficiency of the NHS? Its great policies hamstrung by bureaucrats in the health service? Really?

Might it be a factor that Germany spends above European average on health and we spend below it? Their devolved system allowed regions to set and implement policy and testing, and to co-opt labs from business and from universities and medical facilities from the outset. While they were testing, tracking, isolating, we were guinea pigs in a plan, now aborted and disowned, to let the virus spread and rely on alleged immunity, while keeping the old and vulnerable indoors.

By market forces I think he means the devolved federal states identifying and responding to demands instead of awaiting instruction from an autonomous public body. The German market forces also help to define the medical standards in accordance with private insurance underwriters as opposed to continually asking for more money.

I don't know the figures for the German health industry but I'd be extremely surprised if it lost £1.3 billion a year due to (known) fraud (often amongst its own staff) like our NHS does.

I haven't mentioned the government but as it happens I don't think they, or any other in Europe, are "playing a blinder" but it does seem unfortunate that NHS rejected PPE supplies that weren't compliant with their purchasing procedures, resulting in the items being sold overseas, where presumably the customer was either more pragmatic,or, more flexible.

 

[nottskev]

If devolved structures enhance the capacity to respond to demand, as compared to other arrangements, so much the worse for us that the changes made to our NHS in 2010 and 2012 only increased central control.

I've no idea what relevance your "fraud" claim has to the issue of the adequacy of our government's response, but i can only say that the buck stops with the government. They are the government, and they are directing the process being followed.

 

[rob48]

Don't disagree about the increased central control, the opposite needs to happen, along with accountability.

The reference to fraud isn't a claim, it's a proven fact:

NHS fraud costs more than PS1.2 billion a year, report reveals

and it was relevant to your remarks about lack of expenditure.

 

[davebhoy]

Do you think it was only around 16th/17th March that the implications of failing to introduce standard infectious disease control measures were known? There was widespread horror, amongst experts and ordinary people, at where we were heading long before that. To answer your "dithering " question - dire warnings from Sage on March 2nd were met with a lockdown on the 23rd. How many people were infected in that period, with its "normal" life, sports fixtures, festivals and concerts?

I'm not sure how to reply to your "the data" and "the advice" suddenly changed. The writing was on the wall, and it is on the record - from a great number of sources of expertise, some in the government tent, warning the government of how bad things could get, and dating from the end of February.

We clearly won't agree. As far as I'm concerned, Johnson was ineffectual in February and shied away from decisive action for three weeks in March. Application of tried and tested strategies for containing infectious diseases was passed over in favour of a flirtation with "herd immunity" which was dropped but wasted time and allowed the virus to spread, damaging more people and making it harder now to control.

The details of the "the science" ie the who/what/when of the government's chosen sources of advice are becoming more widely known; equally, we can see more clearly how the government's decisions of which "science" to run with and which to sideline have played out.

It's a sorry mess, and the PR narrative - we're following the science - will be recognised more and more as a cynical fiction that translates as we're picking and choosing such science as we find politically compatible, and we'll be pointing at the scientists when things go wrong. I hope the level of scrutiny obliges Johnson and his crew to raise their game from this level.

Disagreeing with you doesn't stop me saying I hope your family stay well, as I hope all the people near me do. I don't care who runs the government in this crisis, but I hope to see things well run.

Sure, I take that as a given, and I don't take discussions/disagreements like this personally, as I'm sure you don't. I was trying to explain that I have no bias towards the present government or personal circumstances that make me favour one approach or the other.

I think this comes down to whether we believe that the government is basing policy on the advice of the scientists and its advisors or, as you seem to think, that is just a narrative being pushed by Johnson and the government. As you said scientists will have different views on the large amounts of evidence, I think that the government is basing its decisions on the consensus that its scientific advisers have reached, I haven't seen anything that tells me they aren't, but have seen enough to believe that they really are.

 

[nottskev]

Can you link me to the actual report? I can find articles in the Telegraph (your link) and the Mail, but nothing for the source. I'd like to see what it says as these two are not the biggest friends of the public sector. I don't support corrupt management of funds.

And even then, I don't think this is on the same plane as the strategies adopted by those responsible for policy, and doesn't excuse or explain the incoherent response to an emergency we anticipated and watched approaching.

 

[davebhoy]

By market forces I think he means the devolved federal states identifying and responding to demands instead of awaiting instruction from an autonomous public body. .

I posted this earlier in the thread

Germany's devolved logic is helping it win the coronavirus race | World news | The Guardian

 

[rob48]

Takes about five seconds:

https://cfa.nhs.uk/resources/downlo...blications/Brochure__FOR WEB_October 2018.pdf

Quite friendly to the public sector I'd say?

 

[nottskev]

Sorry - I posted above before I saw this. That's the nub of it. My view is in between the two options. Policy has been based on some of the advice given, and some advice sidelined. At the same time, some kinds of expertise have been favoured and attended to, others - signally, traditional and well-established Public Health expertise - has been under-represented. The issue is about the range of expertise allowed to influence the political judgement, and the quality of judgement itself. My reasons for taking this view include the widespread incredulity, in informed commentators, at the path the government have taken, the huge discrepancy with other countries, the reports, some anonymous, some attributed from people close to the decision-making process, and the sorry results to date of the strategies adopted. "The Science" seems to have been selected out of a welter of contrary views to support a weak response that shied away from lockdown and is struggling belatedly to raise the wherewithal for suppression based on testing, tracking and isolation.

 

[davebhoy]

Sorry - I posted above before I saw this. That's the nub of it. My view is in between the two options. Policy has been based on some of the advice given, and some advice sidelined. At the same time, some kinds of expertise have been favoured and attended to, others - signally, traditional and well-established Public Health expertise - has been under-represented. The issue is about the range of expertise allowed to influence the political judgement, and the quality of judgement itself. My reasons for taking this view include the widespread incredulity, in informed commentators, at the path the government have taken, the huge discrepancy with other countries, the reports, some anonymous, some attributed from people close to the decision-making process, and the sorry results to date of the strategies adopted. "The Science" seems to have been selected out of a welter of contrary views to support a weak response that shied away from lockdown and is struggling belatedly to raise the wherewithal for suppression based on testing, tracking and isolation.

What reports have you read?

 

[nottskev]

What reports have you read?

Many of them have been collected in this

Revealed: the inside story of the UK's Covid-19 crisis | World news | The Guardian


In case it seems I'm in a Guardian echo chamber

Government coronavirus experts fear ministers are 'trying to pass the buck' | Daily Mail Online

 

[Tree123]

You cant please everyone all the time.

Bit like i feel the daily update is completely pointless.
Theu just waffle on about the same things and words to the effect off we dont really have a clue. I feel like an update twice a week would be much better. But im dressed as holy hell with the whole thing. Bit of me think f it im going fishing as i can avoid people. Just so i have some joy in life.

 

[103841]

I liked your post mistakenly.

If you don't like the daily waffle don't watch it, simple! I can recommend The Chase on ITV if you'd like some light entertainment.

 

[Tree123]

I dont. I only watched it today as media hyped up there was going to be some crazy news. By fault for trusting media i trust

 

[103841]

Don't moan then.

Sorry to be blunt but i have little time for those that think it is safe to go fishing.

 

[Tree123]

sorry
Im just taking my frustrations and my depressions out. Im just not coping with lockdown and being a prisoner in my own house with a lack od information. Im going to turn the laptop off now :w

 

[103841]

You’re in a similar boat to so many of us, Ramsgate has some beautiful walks, if you can get out, do so.

 

[mikench]

I listened to the figures for fines imposed on transgressors of the lockdown policy. Many people have been fined ranging from a pub landlord in Yorkshire who remained open to a guy caught and fined 6 times. I don’t know about losing a licence something more painful would be more appropriate.

I hope they are denied treatment because they do not deserve it.

 

[davebhoy]

Many of them have been collected in this

Revealed: the inside story of the UK's Covid-19 crisis | World news | The Guardian


In case it seems I'm in a Guardian echo chamber

Government coronavirus experts fear ministers are 'trying to pass the buck' | Daily Mail Online

I had read the Guardian article. I didn’t see much in it that suggested they aren’t acting on the advice of the advisors, but this did jump out at me:

“In allowing them, the government was indeed, as it consistently said, following the UK science that, surprisingly to many, considers that “mass gatherings” do not have a major impact on virus transmission.”

I read the Guardian and I have never got the impression that they think the government is spinning the story about how they’re making decisions. Maybe that’s confirmation bias on my part

I haven’t seen that Daily Mail article before, not somewhere I’d normally look. But it does have a quote from someone on SAGE, although he’s suggesting the govt insistence that it’s following advice has sometimes gone a bit past the mark. Hardly supports the argument of a “cynical fiction.”

 

[nottskev]

I had read the Guardian article. I didn’t see much in it that suggested they aren’t acting on the advice of the advisors, but this did jump out at me:

“In allowing them, the government was indeed, as it consistently said, following the UK science that, surprisingly to many, considers that “mass gatherings” do not have a major impact on virus transmission.”

I read the Guardian and I have never got the impression that they think the government is spinning the story about how they’re making decisions. Maybe that’s confirmation bias on my part

I haven’t seen that Daily Mail article before, not somewhere I’d normally look. But it does have a quote from someone on SAGE, although he’s suggesting the govt insistence that it’s following advice has sometimes gone a bit past the mark. Hardly supports the argument of a “cynical fiction.”

My view is not only that "following the science" is a useful and flexible bit of PR, it's that we have been badly served by the substantive decisions and omissions of the government, which has stumbled through so far, lagged behind events, and failed to communicate honestly. I'm far from alone in it, but if you're feeling we couldn't be much better served, then you are free to do so . We're both still here; I hope that continues.

BTW, the Mail quote: when the chair of PI-M , one of three groups feeding into Sage, suggests the govt have gone past the mark, you need to acknowledge the understatement inherent on commenting from that position.
He can hardly say what I or others might. He also agreed they were passing the buck.

 

[davebhoy]

I'm far from alone in it, but if you're feeling we couldn't be much better served, then you are free to do so.

Thanks very much!