Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, 747-400 said:

Behind the scenes? Is it not the role of DoPH to provide a strategy for dealing with pandemic?

What surprises me is that people seem to think she is acting alone. Do you not think she is using her extensive networks in the UK and doing her research?

It's not her role to make the final decisions though - those are political.  A DoPH's role is as you say behind the scenes in providing that advice, but as civil servants they then have to defend what decisions are made by the government, no matter how much or how little their advice has been taken used. 

This is something we have seen constantly in the UK over the last year, with the health professionals having to make the best possible scientific case for whatever nonsense the politicians come up with.

[Rhumsaa]

31 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's not her role to make the final decisions though - those are political.  A DoPH's role is as you say behind the scenes in providing that advice, but as civil servants they then have to defend what decisions are made by the government, no matter how much or how little their advice has been taken used. 

This is something we have seen constantly in the UK over the last year, with the health professionals having to make the best possible scientific case for whatever nonsense the politicians come up with.

They must be looking over at the DOI with envy

[Happier diner]

51 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's not her role to make the final decisions though - those are political.  A DoPH's role is as you say behind the scenes in providing that advice, but as civil servants they then have to defend what decisions are made by the government, no matter how much or how little their advice has been taken used. 

This is something we have seen constantly in the UK over the last year, with the health professionals having to make the best possible scientific case for whatever nonsense the politicians come up with.

There is some truth here, but I think in the main, our politicians would be very unlikely to have the courage (or stupidity) to ignore professional advice. 

[Boris Johnson]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

There is some truth here, but I think in the main, our politicians would be very unlikely to have the courage (or stupidity) to ignore professional advice. 

They do it all the time, its one of the problems the island has. 

[747-400]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's not her role to make the final decisions though - those are political.  A DoPH's role is as you say behind the scenes in providing that advice, but as civil servants they then have to defend what decisions are made by the government, no matter how much or how little their advice has been taken used. 

This is something we have seen constantly in the UK over the last year, with the health professionals having to make the best possible scientific case for whatever nonsense the politicians come up with.

Agree 100% with you 👍

It was the criticism directed at the DoPH I felt was totally uncalled for.

 

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is something we have seen constantly in the UK over the last year, with the health professionals having to make the best possible scientific case for whatever nonsense the politicians come up with.

Absolutely.

Bozo's first option for dealing with the pandemic was "herd immunity" because do nothing is always his go to option.

Then Sir Patrick Vallance took quite a beasting over Bozo's choice of policy. Because of that no doubt Vallance and Whitty realised that they were dealing with a totally amoral narcissistic serial philanderer and inveterate liar and as a consequence became a great deal more circumspect.

The real irony is that the very successful UK vaccine rollout was mostly due to Vallance and his brainchild The Vaccine Taskforce and the NHS with their one percent payrise.

Of course totally amoral Bozo Johnson just can't help himself trying to take the credit. He mentioned the vaccine rollout several times in this weeks PMQ's to try and wriggle out of answering Starmer's questions.

Can't fault the logic. The intellectually lazy Great British Public voted for brexit so they're certainly unlikely to look in to who it was who largely engineered the vaccine rollout.

Put it this way. It wasn't totally amoral narcissistic serial philanderer and inveterate liar Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson....

[code99]

9 hours ago, 747-400 said:

It was the criticism directed at the DoPH I felt was totally uncalled for.

What the Island needs most from HE (as a Director of IOM Public Health), are health programs that are tailored to our particular circumstances, not programs which are mini-versions of what the UK is doing. Just because HE is well connected with the English Public Health and devolved administrations health systems, these connections do not necessarily make her a good ‘technically capable’ Director of Public Health. She must be able to demonstrate that she has an up-to-date scientific knowledge in all areas of Public Health.

Unlike in the UK where there were in excess of four million cases and genomic sequencing was practically impossible, here the number of cases was small. This ‘small number’ should have enabled the IOM to follow NZ’s approach, where they like us had a relatively small number of cases and also the goal of total virus elimination. When HE said that no one had convinced her that genomic testing was essential, she made a political statement, rather than a scientific one. The bar she set ('essential') was unattainably high. As far as I can tell, for ‘life’, only clean air, water and food are ‘essential’; everything else has degrees of desirability and usefulness. Another issue is that it appears that she did not have any direct contact with Dr Glover. She seems to have dismissed Dr Glover’s science without actually listening to Dr Glover’s arguments and proposals.

Now HE seems to be confused about which day she met with the SPC. She says it was on 25 January but Mark Woodward says it took place on 3 February. One begins to wonder what other important issues she is not sure about.

Edited May 1, 2021 by code99
typo

[The Voice of Reason]

16 minutes ago, code99 said:

 When HE said that no one had convinced her that genomic testing was essential, she made a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

I’d be interested to know how you have come to this conclusion. Could you explain? 

[747-400]

1 hour ago, code99 said:

What the Island needs most from HE (as a Director of IOM Public Health), are health programs that are tailored to our particular circumstances, not programs which are mini-versions of what the UK is doing. Just because HE is well connected with the English Public Health and devolved administrations health systems, these connections do not necessarily make her a good ‘technically capable’ Director of Public Health. She must be able to demonstrate that she has an up-to-date scientific knowledge in all areas of Public Health.

Unlike in the UK where there were in excess of four million cases and genomic sequencing was practically impossible, here the number of cases was small. This ‘small number’ should have enabled the IOM to follow NZ’s approach, where they like us had a relatively small number of cases and also the goal of total virus elimination. When HE said that no one had convinced her that genomic testing was essential, she made a political statement, rather than a scientific one. The bar she set ('essential') was unattainably high. As far as I can tell, for ‘life’, only clean air, water and food are ‘essential’; everything else has degrees of desirability and usefulness. Another issue is that it appears that she did not have any direct contact with Dr Glover. She seems to have dismissed Dr Glover’s science without actually listening to Dr Glover’s arguments and proposals.

Now HE seems to be confused which day she met with SPC. She says it was on 25 January but Mark Woodward says it took place on 3 February, etc.

One begins to wonder what other important issues she is not sure about.

I would much prefer a DoPH who is network, can be updated, share, discuss and get input, rather than one who work alones. What makes you so certain that she does not discuss IoM aspects with her PH colleagues? Why do you think she has not discussed the potential in the use of genomics with ”other” experts in this field for the IoM.

As I said earlier, I was surprised at the poor quality of questioning at the PAC. I was expecting they would have been better prepared with stronger and more probing questions. It seems Ms Edge and Mr Robertshaw got stage fright. Or maybe they have had a change of heart after listening to Dr Ewart?

Why do you assume Mr Woodward is not ”confused” on the date of a particular meeting. It seems rather belittling of him to bring up something so petty. If she has made an innocent mistake of the day they met, does it really make her confused?

I refer to ”other” experts as it my guess that she has been told not to communicate with Dr Glover after legal letters started. Only my guess 😊

 

 

[Happier diner]

12 hours ago, code99 said:

 

Unlike in the UK where there were in excess of four million cases and genomic sequencing was practically impossible, here the number of cases was small. This ‘small number’ should have enabled the IOM to follow NZ’s approach, where they like us had a relatively small number of cases and also the goal of total virus elimination. When HE said that no one had convinced her that genomic testing was essential, she made a political statement, rather than a scientific one. 

Why would you cite NZs approach. Their genomics lab must have Bush weed blowing through it. The lab techs must be good at sudoku by now. You could count the no of outbreaks they have had using the fingers of a one armed man and still have fingers to spare.

Surely their success is virtually completely due to their strict border closure and effective track and trace.

Perhaps if they had had multiple outbreaks it would have been useful, but we are there is no clear evidence to support this.

[TheTeapot]

Still at it.

[the stinking enigma]

The remit divergance is low with this one

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Why would you cite NZs approach. Their genomics lab must have Bush weed blowing through it. The lab techs must be good at sudoku by now. You could count the no of outbreaks they have had using the fingers of a one armed man and still have fingers to spare.

I hate to break this to you, but testing laboratories can do more than one test - they don't build a new lab for each purpose.  So the people doing the sequencing in New Zealand will be doing other forms of genetic testing for the rest of their time, just as Taxa Genomics would have done sequencing for IOMG fitted around their usual work of checking the genetic defects of dogs and so on.

As it happens they do still have a trickle of work to do, because even without community outbreaks there are still people arriving in New Zealand who are then testing positive on arrival or during managed isolation, here's three announced on Thursday.  They sequence all of these cases so that when the virus does inevitably leak out into the community, as it has on several occasions, they can find the source quickly and then work out what happened and change procedures appropriately.   Lessons are indeed learned, rather than it merely being pronounced that they have.

[code99]

On 4/30/2021 at 9:18 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

I’d be interested to know how you have come to this conclusion. Could you explain? 

Politicians love to use (and abuse) words like ‘essential’ to emotionally manipulate their audience and to justify their often otherwise unjustifiable actions. For example, the recent refurbishments at No. 10 Downing Street were deemed to be ‘essential’ because Bo Jo and his latest fiancée should not be expected to live in a ‘pit’.  Similarly, when it comes to ‘essential’ workers, depending on who you ask, these workers are anybody from doctors and nurses to au pairs and welders and were therefore allowed to come to the Island during the pandemic whilst some family members of Manx residents had their applications declined due to various (spurious) reasons.

When scientists publish peer reviews it is generally expected that their feedback will be based on facts, not on subjective opinions. In my view HE used the word ‘essential’ in a similar way to how Bo Jo used it – i.e., as a political justification for her decision. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by code99
Edit to Add

[Uhtred]

55 minutes ago, code99 said:

Politicians love to use (and abuse) words like ‘essential’ to emotionally manipulate their audience and to justify their often otherwise unjustifiable actions. For example, the recent refurbishments at No. 10 Downing Street were deemed to be ‘essential’ because Bo Jo and his latest fiancée should not be expected to live in a ‘pit’.  Similarly, when it comes to ‘essential’ workers, depending on who you ask, these workers are anybody from doctors and nurses to au pairs and welders.

When scientists publish peer reviews it is generally expected that their feedback will be based on facts, not on subjective opinions. In my view HE used the word ‘essential’ in a similar way to how Bo Jo used it – i.e., as a political justification for her decision. 

HE is based in the Cabinet Office, the epicentre of Quayle’s operation; she’s not at arms length in Manx Care. That’s significant. She was also demonstrating far too much unwavering adherence to the party line in the press briefings, over the top deference to Quayle (in particular) and Ashford, and fulsomely embraced herself the Quayle intolerance and discourteous dismissal of challenging media questions. She’s operating as part of the machine, not as an independent, medically qualified voice. I consider her approach and pronouncements are best treated with circumspection.