that was pretty awful Max Hancock

145791013

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵
  • It's scary having a *government* that doesn't believe in the NHS...
    :fearful:
  • Except when it suits them - praising "our wonderful NHS" in order to garner votes at an election.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Yes, and grinning all over their inane faces whilst busily clapping for the NHS cameras...
    :angry:
  • Hang on, I'm sure I saw Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson et al clapping the NHS every thursday night for months on end - this clearly demonstrates their support. It would be hypocritical if they then refused NHS workers a decent pay rise, sent NHS workers from other countries 'back home', privatised everything in sight and so on, wouldn't it? So they can't have done any of those things.
  • Indeed they can't.

    Fake News, is what it is. I blame Corbyn...
  • Who's he? Never heard of him.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Some *Communist* or other, so I have heard, who is responsible for all the Woes and Ills that now beset fair (but currently miserable) England.

    Seriously, on the basis of his speech in the House of Toddlers yesterday, O! for the chaos of an Ed Miliband government...

    (Apparently he did a rather good job in completely routing Johnsummings, Priticock, and all the rest of the Gang, whilst Sir Keir Starmer was correctly observing Covid-19 precautions, and not driving north to test his eyesight etc.)
  • Some *Communist* or other, so I have heard, who is responsible for all the Woes and Ills that now beset fair (but currently miserable) England.

    Seriously, on the basis of his speech in the House of Toddlers yesterday, O! for the chaos of an Ed Miliband government...

    (Apparently he did a rather good job in completely routing Johnsummings, Priticock, and all the rest of the Gang, whilst Sir Keir Starmer was correctly observing Covid-19 precautions, and not driving north to test his eyesight etc.)

    Great minds...

    https://twitter.com/alienfromzog/status/1305600518706868227?s=19

    :wink:

    AFZ
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister
  • It's scary having a *government* that doesn't believe in the NHS...
    :fearful:

    Good job that it doesn't apply in the UK

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    He’s not the Minister for Health, but he is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, so in common parlance calling him ‘a health minister’ seems reasonable enough.
  • Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister

    It was the “when you have a free service” that gave him away. I doubt he realised what a clear signal that was. Or maybe didn’t care.

  • Good to see that @Telford is still around, and enjoying himself* in his parallel universe...

    (*let the reader understand)
  • This reader would prefer to not understand.
  • O quite. After all, TIACW.
    :wink:
  • Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister

    It was the “when you have a free service” that gave him away. I doubt he realised what a clear signal that was. Or maybe didn’t care.

    Accortding to Labour, before every election, the Conservatives will sell the NHS. It has not happened and will not happen


  • I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown

    I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...

    AFZ
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister

    It was the “when you have a free service” that gave him away. I doubt he realised what a clear signal that was. Or maybe didn’t care.

    Accortding to Labour, before every election, the Conservatives will sell the NHS. It has not happened and will not happen

    Then why are virgin running GP surgeries ?

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2020
    The takeover of GP practices by groups like Virgin and One Medical is a worrying development for a variety of reasons, but AIUI most GP practices have always (like most dentists) been private businesses. Most have them have been partnerships owned by a number of the GPs who practise in them.

    My understanding is that it is getting harder to find GPs who are willing to take on the challenge of running a business alongside what is required of them for the medical role.
  • As you say it's a simple model, but from simple and almost certainly true principles (virus goes from a person to a person).
    Any deviations have to come from an understanding beyond that, (although there is some play in what the significant change that took place near lookdown was. The saturation theory was perfectly possible it's just that there wasn't any evidence for it, and current evidence reveals relying on it would have been the reckless gamble it appeared.).

    Meanwhile the stupid test locations seem to be avoidable, with it being in reported in parliament that you can get testing in London if you tell them you live it Aberdeen. At best it's just typical private sector efficiency, at worst malice.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Privatisation of public services is always going to fail in a way because private companies are essentially businesses and businesses need profit to function. Some rail franchise groups have done well. A lot have not and people pay a lot of money for poor services. Private businesses have to limit numbers of staff to cope with the cost v profit ratio. Prison security is one that doesn’t have the best of reps either.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Yes, I get it. Rather than engage with arguments put forward in a post you'll opt for being a nit-picking pedant over the use of a commonly used form for the title of a public office - one with historical precedent, even if it's not been the official form of that title for my lifetime.
  • @Telford

    This thread isn’t about you.

    But this one is - https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2902/telford/p1?new=1
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister

    It was the “when you have a free service” that gave him away. I doubt he realised what a clear signal that was. Or maybe didn’t care.

    Accortding to Labour, before every election, the Conservatives will sell the NHS. It has not happened and will not happen

    Then why are virgin running GP surgeries ?

    How much testing is privately run? It's called NHS testing, but haven't Serco got their mitts on it? But we are in the safe hands of Dido Harding, so that's a relief.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Privatisation of public services is always going to fail in a way because private companies are essentially businesses and businesses need profit to function.
    Profit as such isn't the problem. Privatisation of public services fails because public services are more efficiently run as long-term monopolies, and short-term competition is the engine that keeps private enterprise efficient.

  • Exhibit A: our city bus company has won the national 'best company of the year' title multiple times. When they abolished Corporation buses in favour of private companies, somehow the council set up the buses as an independent entity, so they need to earn enough to cover costs and invest, but they don't need to make the profit levels of the likes of Arriva or Stagecoach, so we have a very good and more importantly reasonably priced service.

    Some of the smaller subsidised routes are run by another company which is the commercial arm of the local community transport company, and the longer distance stuff is generally operated by a different firm, but several people have tried to compete, mostly on the busy student routes, by undercutting on price, and gone bust over the last few years.
  • Apologies for the double post

    Circle used to run the treatment centre at the local hospital, but lost the contract last year when the CCG put it up for tender again. It went to the NHS trust, who had been using it for some clinics anyway. Circle did rather throw their toys out of the pram, taking it to court, but they lost on the grounds that the hospital had put together a commercially better bid.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @Telford

    This thread isn’t about you.

    But this one is - https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2902/telford/p1?new=1

    I looked at it as I hoped it would be about The Colossus of Roads. I would appear to be about me. Modesty prevents me from joining in.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    For this relief, much thanks.

    Back to little Mattie, he seems to have been supplanted by another of the Gang, one Buckland, who is something to do with *justice*...
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54172210
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Yes, I get it. Rather than engage with arguments put forward in a post you'll opt for being a nit-picking pedant over the use of a commonly used form for the title of a public office - one with historical precedent, even if it's not been the official form of that title for my lifetime.

    I was only trying to be hepful.
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    In any case he's not a health minister
    I know Matt Hancock has been doing an atrocious job, but I wasn't aware he'd been sacked from his position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
    I refer you to the post before yurs
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Amongst the rest of his blah blah blah excuses regarding his testing mess Max Handcock said -
    "I don't deny that it is an enormous challenge and when you have a free service it's inevitable that demand rises.”

    He does not like our Health Service being free at the point of use, does he? It’s scary having a Health minister who doesn’t believe in the NHS.

    🤬😡🥵

    How do you come to that conclusion? In any case he's not a health minister

    It was the “when you have a free service” that gave him away. I doubt he realised what a clear signal that was. Or maybe didn’t care.

    Accortding to Labour, before every election, the Conservatives will sell the NHS. It has not happened and will not happen

    Then why are virgin running GP surgeries ?

    I was not aware of this. I will ask the doctor about it during my next appointment.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown

    I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...

    AFZ

    That's all very interesting and no doubt correct but it's all hindsight.
  • Ah yes - the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    However (strange though it may seem), lessons can be learned from past mistakes, and not only how to make fresh mistakes...
  • Ah yes - the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    However (strange though it may seem), lessons can be learned from past mistakes, and not only how to make fresh mistakes...

    Yes. We do need to do better.
  • Telford wrote: »

    As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown

    I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...

    AFZ

    That's all very interesting and no doubt correct but it's all hindsight.

    Why, thank you.

    However, the observation that it's 'hindsight' a complete cop-out for two reasons:

    1. There were a very large number of experts at the time screaming (metaphorically) at the government to act sooner. The whole 'following the science' argument was always bogus but even if you accept in February that there were reasonable alternatives, by March it was crystal clear that radical action was needed. Spain and Italy to name but two examples showed what was needed. And the nature of pandemics makes it obvious that the sooner you lockdown, the sooner you can unlockdown too.
    2. (Arguably this is the more important part:) We are not out of this crisis. It is deeply foolish not to learn from past mistakes. This government will not even admit that mistakes were made: to quote Mr Johnson "The world is looking with envy at our success." And as these data clearly show, future mistakes will probably cost thousands of lives thus to not be prepared to consider such lessons (because that would mean admitting past mistakes) is to be playing with the lives of thousands of citizens.

    So, I say bollocks to Hindsight. It's time to take these facts seriously.

    AFZ
  • I am repeating alien, but to say it's all hindsight is idiotic. Scientists don't just look back, they look contemporaneously, at what other scientists are saying and doing. And many were urging immediate action in early March, but the UK govt hummed and hawed over it, as they have done with testing, although that is probably also fucked by private companies, plus over-centralization.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Ah yes - the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    However (strange though it may seem), lessons can be learned from past mistakes, and not only how to make fresh mistakes...

    Yes. We do need to do better.

    I don't think there's any doubt about that.

    So, how do you suggest that we go about it? Others have come up with some ideas - what's your take? See if you can come up with something positive...
  • Change the calendar and pretend it's only February?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    O if only we could!
    :disappointed:

    On reflection, could we go back a bit further - say to 2015 - before whoever-it-was fiddled with the Large Hadron Collider, and sent us into this horrible parallel universe?
    :confounded:
  • Telford wrote: »
    Ah yes - the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    However (strange though it may seem), lessons can be learned from past mistakes, and not only how to make fresh mistakes...

    Yes. We do need to do better.

    I don't think there's any doubt about that.

    So, how do you suggest that we go about it? Others have come up with some ideas - what's your take? See if you can come up with something positive...

    One of the first things the government should do is to make sure that people are doing their job right. I have in mind the problems with testing.
    Telford wrote: »

    As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown

    I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...

    AFZ

    That's all very interesting and no doubt correct but it's all hindsight.

    Why, thank you.

    However, the observation that it's 'hindsight' a complete cop-out for two reasons:

    1. There were a very large number of experts at the time screaming (metaphorically) at the government to act sooner. The whole 'following the science' argument was always bogus but even if you accept in February that there were reasonable alternatives, by March it was crystal clear that radical action was needed. Spain and Italy to name but two examples showed what was needed. And the nature of pandemics makes it obvious that the sooner you lockdown, the sooner you can unlockdown too.
    2. (Arguably this is the more important part:) We are not out of this crisis. It is deeply foolish not to learn from past mistakes. This government will not even admit that mistakes were made: to quote Mr Johnson "The world is looking with envy at our success." And as these data clearly show, future mistakes will probably cost thousands of lives thus to not be prepared to consider such lessons (because that would mean admitting past mistakes) is to be playing with the lives of thousands of citizens.

    So, I say bollocks to Hindsight. It's time to take these facts seriously.

    AFZ

    A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepoted by the public because thay had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger. There had been very few deaths.

    However we were far too slow to close down pubs, clubs etc and all sporting events involving crowds

  • Nonsense. We'd seen the bodies piling up in Italy.
  • Yes, but they were Foreign People Not Like Us, and so therefore it couldn't happen here...
    :grimace:
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepoted by the public because thay had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger. There had been very few deaths<snip>
    1. I think you’re mistaken, there’s considerable evidence that people were going into self-imposed lockdown if they could, and some were pressing for a lockdown because contractually they couldn’t without a government order.
    2. Even if there might have been resistance to a lockdown, it was the right thing to do and should have been tried.
  • Telford wrote: »
    One of the first things the government should do is to make sure that people are doing their job right. I have in mind the problems with testing.
    It would help in that case if the government hadn't handed over responsibility for testing to various private firms with no particular experience or expertise in the area. I haven't heard of any penalty clauses in the relevant contracts that are being triggered by the current problems with testing; have you?
  • One comment in the BBC website report earlier is that the bottle neck is at least partially human: they were employing a lot of people from academia to do the lab testing, but those people have gone back to their normal roles, and the government may have been less than successful in enticing them to work for the testing programme.

    Even hospitals will be doing their Covid testing on top of their usual diagnostic work, especially as the NHS ramps up normal work again and is actively encouraging people to get symptoms investigated.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Ah yes - the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    However (strange though it may seem), lessons can be learned from past mistakes, and not only how to make fresh mistakes...

    Yes. We do need to do better.

    I don't think there's any doubt about that.

    So, how do you suggest that we go about it? Others have come up with some ideas - what's your take? See if you can come up with something positive...

    One of the first things the government should do is to make sure that people are doing their job right. I have in mind the problems with testing.
    Telford wrote: »

    As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown

    I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...

    AFZ

    That's all very interesting and no doubt correct but it's all hindsight.

    Why, thank you.

    However, the observation that it's 'hindsight' a complete cop-out for two reasons:

    1. There were a very large number of experts at the time screaming (metaphorically) at the government to act sooner. The whole 'following the science' argument was always bogus but even if you accept in February that there were reasonable alternatives, by March it was crystal clear that radical action was needed. Spain and Italy to name but two examples showed what was needed. And the nature of pandemics makes it obvious that the sooner you lockdown, the sooner you can unlockdown too.
    2. (Arguably this is the more important part:) We are not out of this crisis. It is deeply foolish not to learn from past mistakes. This government will not even admit that mistakes were made: to quote Mr Johnson "The world is looking with envy at our success." And as these data clearly show, future mistakes will probably cost thousands of lives thus to not be prepared to consider such lessons (because that would mean admitting past mistakes) is to be playing with the lives of thousands of citizens.

    So, I say bollocks to Hindsight. It's time to take these facts seriously.

    AFZ

    A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepoted by the public because thay had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger.

    The public had started to go into lockdown about a week before the government announced the official lockdown. Compliance was also way better than anything the ‘nudge’ unit predicted. There is no evidence for your argument and plenty against.
  • Telford wrote: »
    A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepted by the public because they had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger. There had been very few deaths.

    However we were far too slow to close down pubs, clubs etc and all sporting events involving crowds
    There's a case. For the argument to hold, you do need to establish that compliance has a complex relationship to the sense of danger and deaths.

    Boris's (apparent) argument in April that you had a 'fixed' amount of compliance (and a fixed peak), and that therefore you had to time that to match the peak, was utter bollocks, getting cause and effect backward. And as long as we have 'fixed' (or even proportionate?) compliance (for reasons I hope you can see) then you want to use that allowance effectively ASAP.

    In practice, I think it was pretty clear that we nationally recognised the danger (definitely by that time we on the ship had), you could argue that we may not have gone far enough (we were still discussing schools).
    And that the government was following the people (notably in the case of pubs, we also had them playing "we want you to decide to close", rather than giving any support)
Sign In or Register to comment.