Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

He’s not a DHSC employee, at least not since Thursday. Just throwing that out there not just to be a pedant, but to wonder if this is going to be part of the way out of this mess. 

Good point, so who is the other party after the re-jig on Thursday? 

If it Manx Care, then perhaps the new CEO may like to get to grips with this as a priority so he can move on and deliver the new structure. 

Edited by Gladys
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Whether he denies it or not

He does; assuming that was actually him a few pages back.

15 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Either way, it's not the issue at hand.

You just made it one of those issues, though, by choosing to name him via that specific accusation. The danger is that if just one such accusation is demonstrably false then doubt may be cast on other points too. I hope you haven't over-egged your pudding.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Whether he denies it or not doesn't change anything that the DHSC have done in the last 5 months at his instruction, with their aggressive legal letters and constantly changing position.

However, it did change a lot for me in the way I wanted to manage the negotiations for my potential return; I insisted the next day on email that they reply to our letter about the robot to move forward negotiations in a formal manner rather than in verbal meetings. This is exactly what I gave in evidence to PAC and can provide emails to back up. I have provided extensive documented evidence for my oral testimony to PAC and am happy to provide more documentation as required.

Either way, it's not the issue at hand. The issue is that a member of Steve's team, who he is responsible for as head of the lab, acted to underhandedly copy and amend the software of a private company after having been offered a license for said software and ignored the legal notices. Steve was the addressee of the original letter stating that the software would need to be licensed.

I do find it interesting that such a senior DHSC employee has posted here in a personal capacity. I hope he cleared it with the AG's office/DHSC/Manx Care before responding.

There are certainly some serious questions for the Government to answer, and hopefully the PAC will press them on those.

Nonetheless, from the point of view of an  outside observer, it is worth bearing in mind that there are two sides to every story, as seen from his post on here today. From the content of his post he appears to feel that what was or wasn't said by him during the meeting with you has now become one of the issues at hand.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, code99 said:

The following article in today's Guardian newspaper describes how scientists in New Zealand are doing precisely what Dr Glover tried to do here. In New Zealand, and globally, the NZ scientists are being praised as world leaders for their work on Covid genomic testing and case-linking. 

This article totally vindicates Dr Glover and her work.

Inconceivably, to-date, the IOMG have been actively dismissing Dr Glover's work as not useful. How is this arrogance and ignorance possible?

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/apr/04/how-new-zealands-covid-success-made-it-a-laboratory-for-the-world

 

I don’t believe that the IOM Government have been actively dismissing Dr Glovers work as not useful (Quite happy to retract that if evidence to the contrary can be provided) But they have chosen to proceed down a different path, an operational decision which is neither arrogant or ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I don’t believe that the IOM Government have been actively dismissing Dr Glovers work as not useful (Quite happy to retract that if evidence to the contrary can be provided) But they have chosen to proceed down a different path, an operational decision which is neither arrogant or ignorant.

Operational decision by who? If there’s no experts in the field here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 an operational decision which is neither arrogant or ignorant.

It is LITERALLY both, because they think they know best and don't understand what the benefits of rapid genomic testing are.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I don’t believe that the IOM Government have been actively dismissing Dr Glovers work as not useful (Quite happy to retract that if evidence to the contrary can be provided) But they have chosen to proceed down a different path, an operational decision which is neither arrogant or ignorant.

You may recall how in recent press briefings they have basically said that because knowing the 'genomic sequencing' of infections would not impact the government lockdown policies this knowledge would not be of any value. Conversely, the NZ government finds this level of scientific knowledge highly valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, code99 said:

You may recall how in recent press briefings they have basically said that because knowing the 'genomic sequencing' of infections would not impact the government lockdown policies this knowledge would not be of any value. Conversely, the NZ government finds this level of scientific knowledge highly valuable.

and we like following NZ health stuff cos they went on a jolliday down there to find out how they did things.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, code99 said:

You may recall how in recent press briefings they have basically said that because knowing the 'genomic sequencing' of infections would not impact the government lockdown policies this knowledge would not be of any value. Conversely, the NZ government finds this level of scientific knowledge highly valuable.

Each government in each jurisdiction must make their own assessment as to the best course of action.  How many times has the IOM been chastised for following UK policy? What’s so good about NZ?


“What might be right for you may not be right for some. It takes Diff’rent strokes to move the world.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, code99 said:

The following article in today's Guardian newspaper describes how scientists in New Zealand are doing precisely what Dr Glover tried to do here. In New Zealand, and globally, the NZ scientists are being praised as world leaders for their work on Covid genomic testing and case-linking. 

This article totally vindicates Dr Glover and her work.

Inconceivably, to-date, the IOMG have been actively dismissing Dr Glover's work as not useful. How is this arrogance and ignorance possible?

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/apr/04/how-new-zealands-covid-success-made-it-a-laboratory-for-the-world

 

Eh?

What are you going on about?

Are Liverpool not providing genomics then?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It is LITERALLY both, because they think they know best and don't understand what the benefits of rapid genomic testing are.

Can we take it that you are an expert in this field and do understand the benefits of rapid genomic testing are?

I guess I should sign off with “ Thanks Dr Glover”  but I’m  not that crass as my detractors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...