Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[alpha-acid]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Again the government statement is using words to suggest things different from what happened.  By "become part of the DHSC’s governance structures" what they actually mean is "be employed".  They offered her a contract that was extremely vague in terms of what she had to do but also meant she could be obliged to work very long hours - something she was trying to avoid.  When she turned this down, rather than negotiate, they tried to threaten her.  At no time did they offer her any advisory position.

In fact they have been perfectly clear and open about the fact that they will only take advice from the 'right' people - ie those they employ directly.  A moment's thought will show what nonsense this is - in any sort of crisis advice from outside is always going to be needed,  But they are so obsessed with their own, self-appointed status, that anything that might damage their belief that they are always right can't even be considered.  The ego is always more important than doing the right thing.

There's actually another point here, which is "Who does advise CoMin directly?".  And the answer appears to be the Chief Secretary and only the Chief Secretary.  Any other advice always gets channelled through him, to be ignored or modified as he sees fit.

•  

Edited April 17, 2021 by alpha-acid

[alpha-acid]

PC acting up

Edited April 17, 2021 by alpha-acid

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Again the government statement is using words to suggest things different from what happened.  By "become part of the DHSC’s governance structures" what they actually mean is "be employed".  They offered her a contract that was extremely vague in terms of what she had to do but also meant she could be obliged to work very long hours - something she was trying to avoid.  When she turned this down, rather than negotiate, they tried to threaten her.  At no time did they offer her any advisory position.

In fact they have been perfectly clear and open about the fact that they will only take advice from the 'right' people - ie those they employ directly.  A moment's thought will show what nonsense this is - in any sort of crisis advice from outside is always going to be needed,  But they are so obsessed with their own, self-appointed status, that anything that might damage their belief that they are always right can't even be considered.  The ego is always more important than doing the right thing.

There's actually another point here, which is "Who does advise CoMin directly?".  And the answer appears to be the Chief Secretary and only the Chief Secretary.  Any other advice always gets channelled through him, to be ignored or modified as he sees fit.

Who advised that there were no grounds for action against SP for not isolating?

[Rhumsaa]

20 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more about advice and knowledge I think.  It's fairly clear that the January outbreak could have been prevented with a more rigorous and extensive use of testing, something that Rachel and many others had been advocating for long before. 

It's possible that the same thing would have applied to the February outbreak as well - certainly you would have expected regular testing of Steam Packet staff anyway and certainly after a UK-based crew member tested positive.  But even if the outbreak had started it could have been halted with much speedier action[1] and genomics would have been essential in making sure that that was effective and enabling lockdown to be lifted much faster.

 

[1]  New Zealand had an outbreak at almost exactly the same time.  Auckland was locked down at 6 am the day after the first positive result.  We waited a fortnight until maybe a thousand people were infected.

I'm not sure what RG has to do with the difference between locking down immediately and locking down 2 weeks later

You're creating a hypothetical situation

[Roger Mexico]

12 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

That's your (stupid) take on it I suppose. 

Delusional.

Thank you for your point-by-point rebuttal.

[TerryFuchwit]

46 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Thank you for your point-by-point rebuttal.

It wasn't worth it.  Your final paragraph really sums it up.  It's weird (perhaps scary even) but some people actually take what you write as gospel.  

[the stinking enigma]

You aren't capable of producing one jeeves. Be honest. That was all you could come up with

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

I'm not sure what RG has to do with the difference between locking down immediately and locking down 2 weeks later

You're creating a hypothetical situation

All situations are hypothetical situations until they happen.  And then it's too late.

Part of the difference is again to do with testing.  The failure to expand testing much at first when you have an  outbreak[1], so as to pick up cases from wider contacts, and the refusal to expand the symptom list (both of which Rachel and many others criticised) meant that the virus spread unmonitored.  The reliance on their 'special Manx' definition of community spread[2] meant that they could continue to aid that spread by not locking down till it was too late.

Genomic testing plays its part in monitoring the spread of such outbreaks, but it is even more important in telling you that you have controlled them and there are no new sources of infection.  This means that you can lock down quicker because you can open up again quicker.  If you look at the lockdowns in the simultaneous Auckland outbreak:

(The first is the alert level for NZ as a whole, the second for the Auckland Region) you can see how quickly they lifted (and reimposed if necessary) restrictions.  We just have one option - impose restrictions for a long time - because we don't have the information to respond quickly.

It's worth emphasising that this isn't just about Rachel Glover.  Personalising things and obsessing over tiny 'he said/she said' details while ignoring the wider issues is part of the problem - though maybe it's the only way many in the government know how to operate.  Certainly the way Rachel was treated has become symptomatic of the arrogance and incompetence of some in power and they way that the only thing that seems to matter is keeping their own egos boosted.  But it has also become symbolic of a clash of cultures between a civil service culture that only seems interested in its own defence and control and a wider science-informed one that wants to do the best for the Island.

 

[1]  Average number of tests per day only went up from around 150 to 225 after the first case and didn't then really go up till about 3 March when it was too late.

[2]  One of the ironies of the mishandling of the outbreaks was that they insisted that important thing was knowing how someone had been infected, while refusing to use genomic tracing because it only told you what at happened in the past ie how someone had been infected.  The only difference is that genomic tracing is much more certain and not prone to wishful thinking.

[TerryFuchwit]

2 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

You aren't capable of producing one jeeves. Be honest. That was all you could come up with

Perfectly capable tagnut. 

Just no point when people like you are too simple to understand 

[TerryFuchwit]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

All situations are hypothetical situations until they happen.  And then it's too late.

Part of the difference is again to do with testing.  The failure to expand testing much at first when you have an  outbreak[1], so as to pick up cases from wider contacts, and the refusal to expand the symptom list (both of which Rachel and many others criticised) meant that the virus spread unmonitored.  The reliance on their 'special Manx' definition of community spread[2] meant that they could continue to aid that spread by not locking down till it was too late.

Genomic testing plays its part in monitoring the spread of such outbreaks, but it is even more important in telling you that you have controlled them and there are no new sources of infection.  This means that you can lock down quicker because you can open up again quicker.  If you look at the lockdowns in the simultaneous Auckland outbreak:

(The first is the alert level for NZ as a whole, the second for the Auckland Region) you can see how quickly they lifted (and reimposed if necessary) restrictions.  We just have one option - impose restrictions for a long time - because we don't have the information to respond quickly.

It's worth emphasising that this isn't just about Rachel Glover.  Personalising things and obsessing over tiny 'he said/she said' details while ignoring the wider issues is part of the problem - though maybe it's the only way many in the government know how to operate.  Certainly the way Rachel was treated has become symptomatic of the arrogance and incompetence of some in power and they way that the only thing that seems to matter is keeping their own egos boosted.  But it has also become symbolic of a clash of cultures between a civil service culture that only seems interested in its own defence and control and a wider science-informed one that wants to do the best for the Island.

 

[1]  Average number of tests per day only went up from around 150 to 225 after the first case and didn't then really go up till about 3 March when it was too late.

[2]  One of the ironies of the mishandling of the outbreaks was that they insisted that important thing was knowing how someone had been infected, while refusing to use genomic tracing because it only told you what at happened in the past ie how someone had been infected.  The only difference is that genomic tracing is much more certain and not prone to wishful thinking.

Refused to use genomics? 

What are Liverpool providing?

[the stinking enigma]

11 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Perfectly capable tagnut. 

Just no point when people like you are too simple to understand 

How about you give it a try and prove one of us right?

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Refused to use genomics? 

What are Liverpool providing?

[TerryFuchwit]

17 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

How about you give it a try and prove one of us right?

I can't with you. It's utterly pointless.  It's like trying to get kitten shit not to smell. Ain't happening.

But I'll humour you.  The last part of Roger Toxic's post said that the Chief Secretary was basically doing what he liked.    If you cannot see how ridiculous that statement is then I cant help you.

[the stinking enigma]

So i'm right then yes?

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, TerryFuchwit said:

What are Liverpool providing?

A wholly unconvincing defence of their Premiership title and speculation about Klopp’s future.