IOM Covid removing restrictions

[the stinking enigma]

Tj?

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Dr Glover's calculation only took into account the cost of consumables and made some assumptions about the staff costs for actually taking the swabs and processing them in the lab. It didn't take account of things such as NI, Superannuation, and it didn't take into account any of the administrative costs of organising tests and informing people of results (done through 111). It didn't make any allowance for community swabs. It also didn't take any account of equipment costs (either capital costs or ongoing running costs), insurance or the pro rata cost of the buildings and infrastructure required to run the operation. I can see why it only took her 30 minutes

Yes, but how many of those costs are costs that are being incurred anyway or are fixed costs regardless of throughput?  Apart from the consumables, you would expect  the cost per test to drop with higher throughput. 

[P.K.]

14 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Dr Glover's calculation only took into account the cost of consumables and made some assumptions about the staff costs for actually taking the swabs and processing them in the lab. It didn't take account of things such as NI, Superannuation, and it didn't take into account any of the administrative costs of organising tests and informing people of results (done through 111). It didn't make any allowance for community swabs. It also didn't take any account of equipment costs (either capital costs or ongoing running costs), insurance or the pro rata cost of the buildings and infrastructure required to run the operation. I can see why it only took her 30 minutes

Exactly right.

All those costs you mention have already been paid out of general taxation. Unless they have had to back-fill with agency staff which I very much doubt.

So effectively you are being taxed twice for the same level of service and nobody likes to be ripped off.

The Isle of Man, where you can...

[Newbie]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but how many of those costs are costs that are being incurred anyway or are fixed costs regardless of throughput?  Apart from the consumables, you would expect  the cost per test to drop with higher throughput. 

That is a fair comment, but if calculating the cost per test is considered an important thing to do, it should be done accurately. If the Health Service staff are spending their time carrying out essentially private work (which is the only reason for wanting to know the cost per test), they are not available to perform NHS work at that time. Similarly, if NHS facilities are being used to process private tests, the cost should include a pro-rata share of the expense of running those facilities. You wouldn't run any other business by saying that you are already having to pay staff costs, rates, insurance etc anyway, so you won't include them in the cost of the service or product. Why should the NHS subsidise private work?

[Newbie]

18 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Exactly right.

All those costs you mention have already been paid out of general taxation. Unless they have had to back-fill with agency staff which I very much doubt.

So effectively you are being taxed twice for the same level of service and nobody likes to be ripped off.

But the reason for wanting to know the cost per test is to charge people who are having it done privately, so they haven't been paid for out of general taxation

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Newbie said:

That is a fair comment, but if calculating the cost per test is considered an important thing to do, it should be done accurately. If the Health Service staff are spending their time carrying out essentially private work (which is the only reason for wanting to know the cost per test), they are not available to perform NHS work at that time. Similarly, if NHS facilities are being used to process private tests, the cost should include a pro-rata share of the expense of running those facilities. You wouldn't run any other business by saying that you are already having to pay staff costs, rates, insurance etc anyway, so you won't include them in the cost of the service or product. Why should the NHS subsidise private work?

But are tests really private work?  IMHO, they should be considered as essential data (not date) gathering and should either be free or subsidised to the extent that many of the costs you list are not passed on. 

[thommo2010]

36 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

I’m still trying to come to terms with the news that one of Ashy’s mates caught Covid three times (on the PM interview).

Chances of that eh?

Island Health Minister peddles a further narrative of fear to perpetuate restrictions & CoMin justification for prolonged nonsense.

Should have seen gmb this morning a small business owner asking relevant questions why they can't open and some dr just being condescending and not actually answering any of the relevant questions. 

[Banker]

27 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Exactly right.

All those costs you mention have already been paid out of general taxation. Unless they have had to back-fill with agency staff which I very much doubt.

So effectively you are being taxed twice for the same level of service and nobody likes to be ripped off.

The Isle of Man, where you can...

 Channel Islands do not charge for tests and they do substantially more than we do , the tests should be free for residents as a minimum because as you say we've already paid for them through taxation.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

 Channel Islands do not charge for tests and they do substantially more than we do , the tests should be free for residents as a minimum because as you say we've already paid for them through taxation.

You forget that the mantra of test, test, test was quickly dropped when it started throwing up positives.  There seems to be very little appetite for testing unless absolutely necessary.

[Newbie]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But are tests really private work?  IMHO, they should be considered as essential data (not date) gathering and should either be free or subsidised to the extent that many of the costs you list are not passed on. 

Well that is a different argument. We are talking about the tests done because people have chosen to travel and then chosen to have the tests rather than isolate for longer. You can easily argue the case that the tests should be free, in order to mitigate some of the travel difficulties brought about by the lockdown, and I would agree with that. But it isn't what the government have decided.

The point I was making was that saying the tests cost the government £18.75 (as in Dr Glover's calculation) is inaccurate. If knowing the actual cost is considered important, it should be correctly calculated. 

[Andy Onchan]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Considering that UK allow you out of isolation  if you’ve done a pre travel PCR and at day 5 and they’re both negative, or 10 days isolation no test, as opposed to day 1, 7, 14 testing or 21 day isolation, the disparities are large.

We've had day 1 and 13 testing for 15 weeks, and day 7 testing for slightly less. I wonder what the stats show for when positives are detected. As it’s about risk management that should be available and fed into the decision making. Perhaps it is. Why isn’t the info publicly available?

 

It's been shredded 

[Gladys]

Just now, Andy Onchan said:

It's been shredded 

Unnecessarily cynical of you, lost through a technical difficulty. 

[Pipsqueak]

1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said:

Ashie said on that that there's a 1 in 100 chance of developing a "stroke event" from getting covid itself. I find that a little alarming, considering i haven't even had a letter yet and the kids are back at school tomorrow, and neither have they. 1 in 100, is that correct?0

so how many people have we had test positive for covid since the start of the year ? and how many have had stroke events ?   that boy talks some shit.

[Zarley]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

You forget that the mantra of test, test, test was quickly dropped when it started throwing up positives.  There seems to be very little appetite for testing unless absolutely necessary.

IMO, dropping the test, test, test mantra has been a major failing and a huge mistake. It never made any sense to charge for testing or make it so difficult to obtain a test in the first place. 

I can't think of a single other communicable disease where testing would incur a charge. It's bonkers. 

[John Wright]

15 minutes ago, Newbie said:

The point I was making was that saying the tests cost the government £18.75 (as in Dr Glover's calculation) is inaccurate. If knowing the actual cost is considered important, it should be correctly calculated. 

Accepted, but at the price she calculated there’s a £31.25 margin for fixed and overhead costs. I’d be surprised if that much can be attributed to each test, I’d be very surprised if it was more than £50 as claimed by DA