Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Foxholer]

Sounds good but I think there would be very practical issues with implementation and parameters. Many organisations play lip-service to the concept but very few fully commit and get it right.

I agree! Though it also seems like (yet) another excuse for Government (Tory?) ineptitude! 6P and other 'formal' processes (5/6 Sigma etc) while appropriate in some areas (IT or other 'Projects' for example), has limitations in environments where 'constant change' is one of the major parameters to manage!
In the end these all come down to the quality/adaptability of the Project Leader - in this case, Boris and his Cabinet! - and their collective reactive decision-making! After initial good impressions, several of their (cover-up) actions have been unimpressive! Mind you, I'm pretty sure 'the other lot' would have acted fairly similarly!
Tom me, it's not particularly a time for party politics - Boris's particular traits - positive and negative - aside!

 

[SocketRocket]

Other parts of the World have managed the situation way better than our government... Largely, reputedly, due to far better preparedness and taking charge with a firmer grip...

Again a simplistic comment. You cant just say other parts of the world have done better, its almost impossible to make comparisons and this is nowhere over yet.
Great news on the UKs progress on a vaccine today, we seem to be doing better than many other countries there or would you like to pour cold water over that and suggest that bit is nothing to do with our government.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Handcock totally refused to answer Whitford's questions in the HoC yesterday. The Deputy Madam Speaker just let it go.
Utter arrogance. What happened to Scotland leading us not leaving us.
I think it is about time the SNP removed it's MP's from Westminster.

 

[Old Skier]

Still waiting on answers to your last post too, by the way.

On this set:

1. The responsibility for pandemic planning is a Governmental one. Even you must know that. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 warned of the hazards of localised and fragmented plans. The Govt could easily have mandated Trusts to hold more, if indeed it was their responsibility. There are plenty of legislative and financial levers to do so.

Are you suggesting that with all the top heavy staff the NHS have that the government has to come up with the plan to deal with the involvement in NHS matters. If that is the case what are all those Directors of the is and Directors of that there for, to fight the fire when its happened. Those that run the NHS are responsible for planning, the government is there to assist in the implementation of the plan.

When the military go to war, they don't expect the government to tell them how to fight it.

 

[MegaSteve]

Sounds good but I think there would be very practical issues with implementation and parameters. Many organisations play lip-service to the concept but very few fully commit and get it right.

When working for a big corporate I'd occasionally get the 'pleasure' of attending [tax deductible] business study courses... And, on my return to work resident senior management would ask if I had a good time and then more or less say I might as well forget/ignore what I've just learnt "as it is not applicable in the real world" ...

My point remains though... If shortcomings, in preparation, are identified then not properly addressed are fully exposed as having not been addressed when the worst occurs it is only reasonable the people [electorate] question its elected government as to why... Ahead of not being told what to do folk, in general, don't like deflection/finger pointing and will make their point known come next polling day...

 

[Ethan]

Are you suggesting that with all the top heavy staff the NHS have that the government has to come up with the plan to deal with the involvement in NHS matters. If that is the case what are all those Directors of the is and Directors of that there for, to fight the fire when its happened. Those that run the NHS are responsible for planning, the government is there to assist in the implementation of the plan.

When the military go to war, they don't expect the government to tell them how to fight it.

I am most certainly suggesting that the response to a national issue needs to be coordinated from the centre. In this context, the Department of Health, as the agent of Govt, and the NHS need to act centrally and in a coordinated fashion.

The fragmentation of the NHS, through the creation of Trusts, has made this more important now then ever.

On a side issue, I agree there are far too many Directors of This and That who contribute nothing of value.

 

[Old Skier]

I am most certainly suggesting that the response to a national issue needs to be coordinated from the centre. In this context, the Department of Health, as the agent of Govt, and the NHS need to act centrally and in a coordinated fashion.

The fragmentation of the NHS, through the creation of Trusts, has made this more important now then ever.

On a side issue, I agree there are far too many Directors of This and That who contribute nothing of value.

Agree that coordination from the centre is vital but I still think the planning of individual areas of responsibility is that of those placed in charge of those areas with the plan then being taken to the centre to be coordinated with other interested parties.

 

[Ethan]

Agree that coordination from the centre is vital but I still think the planning of individual areas of responsibility is that of those placed in charge of those areas with the plan then being taken to the centre to be coordinated with other interested parties.

I would say that delivery, and to a certain extent tactics, may be a local responsibility but planning and strategy should be central. The US is discovering this the hard way. Different state governors are taking different strategic approaches, and some of these are proving to be disastrous.

For example, masks. Now you may think masks are useful or you may they are not, but you probably agree there is no difference in their usefulness between California and Arizona, yet those two states are operating different policies based on prevailing political positions.

in a different context, the same wasteful practices happen locally in the NHS. When a new medicine is approved, drug formulary committees at all the Trusts review the data and reach a range of conclusions. But a new medicine works the same in Cumbria and Cornwall. One central verdict is quite enough.

 

[Foxholer]

I would say that delivery, and to a certain extent tactics, may be a local responsibility but planning and strategy should be central. The US is discovering this the hard way. Different state governors are taking different strategic approaches, and some of these are proving to be disastrous.

For example, masks. Now you may think masks are useful or you may they are not, but you probably agree there is no difference in their usefulness between California and Arizona, yet those two states are operating different policies based on prevailing political positions.

in a different context, the same wasteful practices happen locally in the NHS. When a new medicine is approved, drug formulary committees at all the Trusts review the data and reach a range of conclusions. But a new medicine works the same in Cumbria and Cornwall. One central verdict is quite enough.

Aren't some of those 'decisions' based on 'affordability' (or perhaps value for money)? It seems to me that there's scope, given the Trust situation, for different Trusts to opt for different approaches, depending on their particular circumstances - which could be affected by 'investment' costs as much as any other.

And Btw. The autonomy of states is, while strangely strange to many/most UK folk, something that is extremely important to virtually every US citizen! And it (or a 'corruption of it') is, after all, the sort of 'federation' that many believe the EU hierarchy wish to impose (by creep!) on EU nations - though with considerable more 'federal' control!

 

[drdel]

Still waiting on answers to your last post too, by the way.

On this set:

1. The responsibility for pandemic planning is a Governmental one. Even you must know that. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 warned of the hazards of localised and fragmented plans. The Govt could easily have mandated Trusts to hold more, if indeed it was their responsibility. There are plenty of legislative and financial levers to do so.

2. It was most certainly not the local or worldwide consensus that a herd immunity strategy was anything other than hideously reckless and likely ineffective. The idea was based on the modelling you like so much. As I pointed out before, Imperial did not get proper peer review on it sooner, or the errors in the model would have been detected sooner. Oh, and "happy" means willing to allow a policy, as you know well. It is not an opinion that they were pursuing such a policy. It is a fact, as blurted out by Vallance, nicely allowing him to carry the can for it. .

3. The data of death recording makes sod all difference to the number of excess deaths, or the overall pattern of the disease, and it certainly does not explain any international differences. There are a number of differences between recording systems. Some other countries may have, as the UK did, instructed corners to refuse death certificates with Covid on them unless there was a positive test. Others didn't.

You want answers or do you simply want to generate an argument...

You post in, what I think is a combative manner and dictatorial manner but I'd point out your opinions are just that..

Rather than looking for an argument how about engaging in a debate with respect for other posters experience/opinions. I generally respect the medical profession but note the spectrum of expertise can vary on whether you take Prof Chris Whitty or Dr Andrew Wakefield to be most credible.

You are correct that every plan and forecast is wrong. However epidemics and other socio-economic issues are impacted by time dynamic parameters. Their purpose is to provide insight, with benefit of the insight we can revise decisions that will be intended to avoid the probability of an unpleasant outcome. If we are successful in avoiding a high death rate then we, with the 20:20 hindsight, are happy the forecast or plan was adjusted. Future planning etc is improved by the knowledge acquired.

Epidemics are not comfortable self-stabilising systems, they are generally feed-forward systems which, by their very nature, are unstable. Automated stock market systems exhibit similar potentially damaging instabilities. It is no surprise that many of the best experts in simulation and econometrics find extremely well paid positions in the Financial sector.

The disdain expressed for simulation models is not shared by most thinkers grappling with complex, interdisciplinary situations. Molecular science, genetics and space etc would not progress at the pace it is able without the analytic speed of super-computer power behind complex simulation models. AI's self learning techniques enable these simulations to adapt to the dynamics of the known parameters.

Pseudo experts frequently hide behind 'professional' arrogance ("you're not a (doctor/soldier/banker/surgeon - retort) and deflect the expertise of others as being inadequate. Most real experts are comfortable in their area and, in my experience, welcome the chance to discuss the limits of their knowledge and open themselves to understand the 'unknown, unknowns.

With respect your post's comments on simulations are not fact and the opinions offered reveals to me a level that would make any attempt to answer the question fully and adequately would take more time that you'd spend reading it before decrying it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Listening to Johnson at the moment I am pleased to hear that the country is in a good place today in it's ability to manage the pandemic going forward. That things are under control. This enables the government to be able to give discretion and decision making to the pubic and employers. And to enable things to get back to something like normality from November - and in time for Christmas. All sounds good.

Getting goosebumps with his very positive statement.

 

[SocketRocket]

When working for a big corporate I'd occasionally get the 'pleasure' of attending [tax deductible] business study courses... And, on my return to work resident senior management would ask if I had a good time and then more or less say I might as well forget/ignore what I've just learnt "as it is not applicable in the real world" ...

My point remains though... If shortcomings, in preparation, are identified then not properly addressed are fully exposed as having not been addressed when the worst occurs it is only reasonable the people [electorate] question its elected government as to why... Ahead of not being told what to do folk, in general, don't like deflection/finger pointing and will make their point known come next polling day...

You said that last time.

 

[Foxholer]

You said that last time.

And it's still relevant! And maybe 'My point remains though' is appropriate.
Though, as I replied to the OP, a pure 6P may not be appropriate (in its specific-ness) to ALL situations - and this pandemic is an example of where fixed planning could well be counter-productive. 'Strategy of approach' could well be/have been a better 'method'.

 

[Old Skier]

Listening to Johnson at the moment I am pleased to hear that the country is in a good place today in it's ability to manage the pandemic going forward. That things are under control. This enables the government to be able to give discretion and decision making to the pubic and employers. And to enable things to get back to something like normality from November - and in time for Christmas. All sounds good.

Getting goosebumps with his very positive statement.

Said with honesty and feeling.

 

[SocketRocket]

Listening to Johnson at the moment I am pleased to hear that the country is in a good place today in it's ability to manage the pandemic going forward. That things are under control. This enables the government to be able to give discretion and decision making to the pubic and employers. And to enable things to get back to something like normality from November - and in time for Christmas. All sounds good.

Getting goosebumps with his very positive statement.

The point I believe is being kept quiet is the arrogant attitudes of so many young people who are refusing to abide by any rules. I see it all the time and although it's not easy to change their behaviour we dont seem to be doing anything much about it.

 

[Foxholer]

You want answers or do you simply want to generate an argument...

You post in, what I think is a combative manner and dictatorial manner but I'd point out your opinions are just that..

Rather than looking for an argument how about engaging in a debate with respect for other posters experience/opinions. I generally respect the medical profession but note the spectrum of expertise can vary on whether you take Prof Chris Whitty or Dr Andrew Wakefield to be most credible.

You are correct that every plan and forecast is wrong. However epidemics and other socio-economic issues are impacted by time dynamic parameters. Their purpose is to provide insight, with benefit of the insight we can revise decisions that will be intended to avoid the probability of an unpleasant outcome. If we are successful in avoiding a high death rate then we, with the 20:20 hindsight, are happy the forecast or plan was adjusted. Future planning etc is improved by the knowledge acquired.

Epidemics are not comfortable self-stabilising systems, they are generally feed-forward systems which, by their very nature, are unstable. Automated stock market systems exhibit similar potentially damaging instabilities. It is no surprise that many of the best experts in simulation and econometrics find extremely well paid positions in the Financial sector.

The disdain expressed for simulation models is not shared by most thinkers grappling with complex, interdisciplinary situations. Molecular science, genetics and space etc would not progress at the pace it is able without the analytic speed of super-computer power behind complex simulation models. AI's self learning techniques enable these simulations to adapt to the dynamics of the known parameters.

Pseudo experts frequently hide behind 'professional' arrogance ("you're not a (doctor/soldier/banker/surgeon - retort) and deflect the expertise of others as being inadequate. Most real experts are comfortable in their area and, in my experience, welcome the chance to discuss the limits of their knowledge and open themselves to understand the 'unknown, unknowns.

With respect your post's comments on simulations are not fact and the opinions offered reveals to me a level that would make any attempt to answer the question fully and adequately would take more time that you'd spend reading it before decrying it.

With respect, I hope you had some mirrors available when you wrote that! As the same is entirely applicable to you/your opinion!
And FWIW...
I don't actually believe there is a recognised 'best' way to handle this ( the pandemic) issue. But there has certainly been a few dodgy decisions and cover-ups/shams by this government. I'm not saying HM's Opposition would have done better, but I'm certain any subsequent enquiry would(/will?) find Boris et al acted truly politically (in their own interest) many timesi

 

[Ethan]

You want answers or do you simply want to generate an argument...

You post in, what I think is a combative manner and dictatorial manner but I'd point out your opinions are just that..

Rather than looking for an argument how about engaging in a debate with respect for other posters experience/opinions. I generally respect the medical profession but note the spectrum of expertise can vary on whether you take Prof Chris Whitty or Dr Andrew Wakefield to be most credible.

You are correct that every plan and forecast is wrong. However epidemics and other socio-economic issues are impacted by time dynamic parameters. Their purpose is to provide insight, with benefit of the insight we can revise decisions that will be intended to avoid the probability of an unpleasant outcome. If we are successful in avoiding a high death rate then we, with the 20:20 hindsight, are happy the forecast or plan was adjusted. Future planning etc is improved by the knowledge acquired.

Epidemics are not comfortable self-stabilising systems, they are generally feed-forward systems which, by their very nature, are unstable. Automated stock market systems exhibit similar potentially damaging instabilities. It is no surprise that many of the best experts in simulation and econometrics find extremely well paid positions in the Financial sector.

The disdain expressed for simulation models is not shared by most thinkers grappling with complex, interdisciplinary situations. Molecular science, genetics and space etc would not progress at the pace it is able without the analytic speed of super-computer power behind complex simulation models. AI's self learning techniques enable these simulations to adapt to the dynamics of the known parameters.

Pseudo experts frequently hide behind 'professional' arrogance ("you're not a (doctor/soldier/banker/surgeon - retort) and deflect the expertise of others as being inadequate. Most real experts are comfortable in their area and, in my experience, welcome the chance to discuss the limits of their knowledge and open themselves to understand the 'unknown, unknowns.

With respect your post's comments on simulations are not fact and the opinions offered reveals to me a level that would make any attempt to answer the question fully and adequately would take more time that you'd spend reading it before decrying it.

Oh dear, I appear to have upset you. I will leave it to others to judge whether I or you have offered arguments in favour of our views or just had a go. I don't believe I have had a go at your credentials, I don't even know what they are, but you have had a go at mine, so you are more guilty of the pseudo expert charge and professional arrogance that you accuse me of.

If you can put your anger aside, you will see that I have said I see a role for modelling and simulations, indeed I have commissioned modelling in another setting, but real experts in the field know that the usefulness is ultimately limited by the quality of the data put into them, and models are fundamentally simplistic, by necessity. This pandemic needed a traditional public health approach, as recommended by WHO, and used in countries that go to grip with it. Modelling is fine as a supplement and to inform, but modelling was used to drive policy decisions and that has proven to be a mistake. None of your waffle about fuzzy logic or AI or self-learning systems can change that fact.

So get off your high horse. Model it first, if you like.

In the absence of a more professional reply, I am done arguing with you.

 

[GB72]

The point I believe is being kept quiet is the arrogant attitudes of so many young people who are refusing to abide by any rules. I see it all the time and although it's not easy to change their behaviour we dont seem to be doing anything much about it.

Young people, especially those under 18, are always going to be an issue. They think themselves bullet proof at the best of times and the earlier press that this pandemic was only going to hurt the old or ill would not have helped. What do you do, fine the parents, use possible life wrecking criminal sanctions, no easy answer.

 

[MegaSteve]

You said that last time.

Probably because my basic premise hasn't altered... When electing a government I am hoping/expecting them to provide/deliver my 'aspirations'... My absolute basic aspiration is to be kept safe... Similarly, though somewhat a bit further down the pecking order, I want away from Brussels... Deliver or depart... Really quite straightforward...

 

[Deleted member 21784]

The point I believe is being kept quiet is the arrogant attitudes of so many young people who are refusing to abide by any rules. I see it all the time and although it's not easy to change their behaviour we dont seem to be doing anything much about it.

Whilst I fully agree.. what about all groups who are moaning about masks?

One member on here being particularly vocal about it