Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[PaulJ]

3 hours ago, rachomics said:

Don't worry  I'm returning. Just on my terms without any of the BS. 

So not untenable after all then?

[BenFairfax]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Don’t want to speak out of turn, BUT, we need Rachael more than she needs us. (For sure).

And Jersey and UK need @rachomics more than we do. Jersey today reported 28 prison officers now need to isolate, and have over 1,800 further people isolating and community. The UK from their testing data here  (select 'Data' tab under 'Cases by specimen date') tells us that:

"Number of people with a positive COVID-19 virus test (either lab-reported or lateral flow device) newly reported on Friday, 20 November 2020."

is 20,252, which is made up from:

Date    United Kingdom daily                       
19-11-2020    1,272    
18-11-2020    12,206
.....

So, the 20,252 reported today, consists of 1,272 people tested on 19th, I estimate around 10,000 people from 18th, and rest a day of more before that. So today the UK returned 6.3% tests within 24 hours,  ~49.4% within 48 hours, and remaining ~55.7% in 72 hours or longer. The few centralized testing facilities means transporting all swabs to central points, lorries bringing in 100s of boxes of 100 swabs in each which would fill rooms and you have army of people to uploading all the toxic material, collate it, (maybe) mixing it with reactive agents and putting into racks for PCR machines. Just these steps will take over 24 hours, would not be surprised in swab collected during day, and driven in lab overnight, next day all collating and getting samples into rack for machines, so 48 hours likely closer on average. On IoM due to not being centralized we do not have such delays, from swab taken to machine I assume it under 6 hours and results are then "called" (what @rachomics calls what I assume is data science techniques to interpret data coming out of machine). 

With all bitching, name calling,... it makes all press conferences more entertaining but at end of day I do not care. When I go to bed I can sleep lot easier because I know if an outbreak happens because have likely maximum 6 hour turn around on testing effective contact tracing and isolation can happen. With UK taking 48 hours before a test comes back, by time contract tracing happens the virus has likely moved on.

The bottleneck in UK system will be number of PhDs in Genetic testing. We have 1 in 85,000 people, at same rate 65M people in UK would need 765 which they do not have. In science as you progress you get boxed in and highly specialized. At least in my field of mathematics at PhD level (and beyond) people diverge and even people who were your colleagues at masters level after year of PhD program will sound like speak in a strange foreign language. The level of understanding is also different, you develop depth rather than breath, what is learnt previously now because internalized and instinctive. It not so much you know things, it more than you become something. As such as @rachomics said you cannot replace professional advice from such individuals in their field by reading a few papers and quoting the conclusions. In end, you have a very unique perspective based on the journey you have traveled, with body of scientific knowledge really residing and living within its community (talking 100s not even 1,000s people globally for each area). The reason I started posting on this, is when I heard @rachomics said she felt "dissed" which I can empathize with through various similar experiences I have had over the years.

[BenFairfax]

5 hours ago, rachomics said:

I'm just better at cooking DNA than I am at cooking biscuits.

I was thinking of trying out Gene Editing in kitchen with CRISPR techniques Not sure what DNA I am allowed to edit in IoM, but like idea selecting for wind resistance for garden veggies.

 

[John Wright]

11 hours ago, rachomics said:

My impression of Howard from the one time I've met him (UCM awards ceremony a few weeks ago) and the briefings is that he's rather superior and clearly thinks he's better than everyone else. He hasn't left the door open for negotiations, he's not interested in the negotiations, he believes they're beneath him

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

[PaulJ]

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

 we need Rachael more than she needs us. (For sure).

I don't

[Holte End]

16 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

I don't

You are Dave Shredder Ashford and I claim my five pounds.

I never trust someone who always says " I stand to be corrected`' in answering questions.

 

 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

He put the pomp in pompous 

[Apple]

12 hours ago, rachomics said:

Don't worry  I'm returning. Just on my terms without any of the BS. 

Good to hear. 

 

[rachomics]

9 hours ago, PaulJ said:

So not untenable after all then?

The only untenable part, if you listen to what I said to Paul Moulton, was continuing to work as a DHSC employee when the specifics of my employment status meant my expertise would never input to anything which aided decision making. The role wasn't untenable, just my specific employment status.

I don't suppose you moonlight as "Isabella Brown" on Facebook, do you? The pair of you seem to have a very similar dislike of me. 

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

But politicians shouldn’t be involved in these negotiations. They should be setting the policy parameters, ie, we want this troublesome woman on board for what she brings to the party, either at any price or as long as she doesn’t cost more than the alternatives ( if there are any ), or who will rid me of this troublesome woman? Go find someone, anyone, else, at any price.

For parish pump politics to descend to this level it takes misjudgments of responsibility on both sides. 

It is HQ’s responsibility, and decision, who to take advice from and which conflicting advice to listen to.

Its HQ and DA job to set policy, and parameters, as I’ve described above.

Its then down to senior civil servants to do coal face negotiations. Then present results for consideration and sign off, or rejection.

Too often here everyone seems to want to short cut and go straight to the minister or an MHK. That isn’t, or shouldn’t be, their job. 

Is it any surprise that service delivery is so ad hoc and dysfunctional.

I should have phrased it better. My point was that HQ isn't involved in negotiations at all. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by rachomics

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

The only untenable part, if you listen to what I said to Paul Moulton, was continuing to work as a DHSC employee. The role wasn't untenable, just my employment status.

I should have phrased it better. My point was that HQ isn't involved in negotiations at all. 

Which is as it should be.

[manxman34]

43 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Which is as it should be.

But seldom is. On this occasion, one suspects his non-involvement is more about protecting his amour propre than observing the niceties.

[the stinking enigma]

13 hours ago, Hmmmm said:

 

My impression of Howard from the one time I've met him (UCM awards ceremony a few weeks ago) and the briefings is that he's rather superior and clearly thinks he's better than everyone else. He hasn't left the door open for negotiations, he's not interested in the negotiations, he believes they're beneath him. 

 

For clarity comment was about HQ

I'm curious. Was this post meant for here? It's just that it reads like a sort of note meant for somewhere else?

[the stinking enigma]

Not sure why you had to clarify that the Howard in question was HQ. Seems a bit strange to me. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by the stinking enigma

[the stinking enigma]

It's like you had to simplify it for stupid people. That can only mean one thing in my book.

[rachomics]

Not at all, I just don't spend any time reading back my previous posts and assumed I hadn't explained properly when part of it was quoted.