RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:First, the scaling up in the last week has been really impressive. In fact since the government woke up they have done a half-decent job. Far from perfect but credit where it's due.

Apparently there has been no change in how they've calculated the numbers, which means that they've always been giving a false impression. The other problem is that apparently (some tweets suggest anyway) at least some of those tests sent out have had no return address and the advice that they were given was simply to bin the test.

Puja wrote:If I were Starmer, I'd be looking to use this as an opportunity to start repetition branding this Government as dishonest. Don't attack the number of tests, go with, "If they'd just announced they'd done 70k then I'd be standing up and applauding the impressive increase. Why did they feel they had to lie? An international emergency is no time for exaggeration and untruths in order to make them look better."

He's an unknown quantity to the average spod, but he can gain a reputation as "honest and reliable" by consistently repeating that the government are dishonest, continually pointing out the exaggerations under the guise of trying to support the Covid Response but disliking that political spin is being imparted by the government, and getting it into the public consciousness that they are not to be trusted. As long as he doesn't get caught in a lie himself, he'll be able to go into the next election as "the trustworthy one" which will be something of an asset against Boris.

Puja

I don't know if you've seen him in action in PMQs but he's been being scrupulously fair but absolutely forensic. It's been a superb example of how to do it. It is time to make the "more in sorrow than in anger" criticism that it appears misleading, whatever their intention. I wouldn't make the accusation that it was dishonest yet because that will look like politics as normal.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:If I were Starmer, I'd be looking to use this as an opportunity to start repetition branding this Government as dishonest. Don't attack the number of tests, go with, "If they'd just announced they'd done 70k then I'd be standing up and applauding the impressive increase. Why did they feel they had to lie? An international emergency is no time for exaggeration and untruths in order to make them look better."

He's an unknown quantity to the average spod, but he can gain a reputation as "honest and reliable" by consistently repeating that the government are dishonest, continually pointing out the exaggerations under the guise of trying to support the Covid Response but disliking that political spin is being imparted by the government, and getting it into the public consciousness that they are not to be trusted. As long as he doesn't get caught in a lie himself, he'll be able to go into the next election as "the trustworthy one" which will be something of an asset against Boris.

Puja

He’s every right to call this out and should do. To undertake a tactic to go on repeated attacks at a time when govt control over the pop is hugely critical is dangerous. We need the country to act on govt advice if we are to get through this. Let’s remember that when the govt first set out social distancing measures people took this to mean to go to beauty spots and beaches just to not practise social distancing advice and, as a whole, the pop under reacted against govt modelling. People listening and acting on govt advice, and let’s remember that advice is born in SAGE not Boris’s kitchen table, is crucial and potentially undermining this is dangerous. Let’s also remember that the biggest culprit for the low number of tests is PHE and that testing has only cranked up once it was taken out of their control/they reluctantly decided to use private providers. The 100k was arbitrary bs and the announcement yesterday more bs but to lay this solely at the feet of politicians is wrong.

It really isn't. The politicians are and have been in control throughout. It's just that they have only taken their fingers out of their arses in the past 6 weeks or so. PHE only has the money the politicians allow it so running off to private providers was always going to need the politicians involvement. However you're absolutely right about the importance of the government messaging being right and them being seen to be honest for us to be able to get through this.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:First, the scaling up in the last week has been really impressive. In fact since the government woke up they have done a half-decent job. Far from perfect but credit where it's due.

Apparently there has been no change in how they've calculated the numbers, which means that they've always been giving a false impression. The other problem is that apparently (some tweets suggest anyway) at least some of those tests sent out have had no return address and the advice that they were given was simply to bin the test.

Puja wrote:If I were Starmer, I'd be looking to use this as an opportunity to start repetition branding this Government as dishonest. Don't attack the number of tests, go with, "If they'd just announced they'd done 70k then I'd be standing up and applauding the impressive increase. Why did they feel they had to lie? An international emergency is no time for exaggeration and untruths in order to make them look better."

He's an unknown quantity to the average spod, but he can gain a reputation as "honest and reliable" by consistently repeating that the government are dishonest, continually pointing out the exaggerations under the guise of trying to support the Covid Response but disliking that political spin is being imparted by the government, and getting it into the public consciousness that they are not to be trusted. As long as he doesn't get caught in a lie himself, he'll be able to go into the next election as "the trustworthy one" which will be something of an asset against Boris.

Puja

I don't know if you've seen him in action in PMQs but he's been being scrupulously fair but absolutely forensic. It's been a superb example of how to do it. It is time to make the "more in sorrow than in anger" criticism that it appears misleading, whatever their intention. I wouldn't make the accusation that it was dishonest yet because that will look like politics as normal.

Mellsblue wrote: He’s every right to call this out and should do. To undertake a tactic to go on repeated attacks at a time when govt control over the pop is hugely critical is dangerous. We need the country to act on govt advice if we are to get through this. Let’s remember that when the govt first set out social distancing measures people took this to mean to go to beauty spots and beaches just to not practise social distancing advice and, as a whole, the pop under reacted against govt modelling. People listening and acting on govt advice, and let’s remember that advice is born in SAGE not Boris’s kitchen table, is crucial and potentially undermining this is dangerous. Let’s also remember that the biggest culprit for the low number of tests is PHE and that testing has only cranked up once it was taken out of their control/they reluctantly decided to use private providers. The 100k was arbitrary bs and the announcement yesterday more bs but to lay this solely at the feet of politicians is wrong.

It really isn't. The politicians are and have been in control throughout. It's just that they have only taken their fingers out of their arses in the past 6 weeks or so. PHE only has the money the politicians allow it so running off to private providers was always going to need the politicians involvement. However you're absolutely right about the importance of the government messaging being right and them being seen to be honest for us to be able to get through this.

Reports that SAGE had to bumped into agreeing to/recommending social distancing measures and that Jnr ministers are unhappy that Snr ministers are enthral to SAGE Politicians make the ultimate decision but that decision will rest on the advice they receive. To say anything else is plain wrong.
Don’t see/agree with the PHE and money argument.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:First, the scaling up in the last week has been really impressive. In fact since the government woke up they have done a half-decent job. Far from perfect but credit where it's due.

Apparently there has been no change in how they've calculated the numbers, which means that they've always been giving a false impression. The other problem is that apparently (some tweets suggest anyway) at least some of those tests sent out have had no return address and the advice that they were given was simply to bin the test.



I don't know if you've seen him in action in PMQs but he's been being scrupulously fair but absolutely forensic. It's been a superb example of how to do it. It is time to make the "more in sorrow than in anger" criticism that it appears misleading, whatever their intention. I wouldn't make the accusation that it was dishonest yet because that will look like politics as normal.


It really isn't. The politicians are and have been in control throughout. It's just that they have only taken their fingers out of their arses in the past 6 weeks or so. PHE only has the money the politicians allow it so running off to private providers was always going to need the politicians involvement. However you're absolutely right about the importance of the government messaging being right and them being seen to be honest for us to be able to get through this.

Reports that SAGE had to bumped into agreeing to/recommending social distancing measures and that Jnr ministers are unhappy that Snr ministers are enthral to SAGE Politicians make the ultimate decision but that decision will rest on the advice they receive. To say anything else is plain wrong.
Don’t see/agree with the PHE and money argument.

Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Reports that SAGE had to bumped into agreeing to/recommending social distancing measures and that Jnr ministers are unhappy that Snr ministers are enthral to SAGE Politicians make the ultimate decision but that decision will rest on the advice they receive. To say anything else is plain wrong.
Don’t see/agree with the PHE and money argument.

Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.

Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.

Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over

Fair, though I don't think they were 'stopped', more that they weren't instructed to change their mindset.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over

Fair, though I don't think they were 'stopped', more that they weren't instructed to change their mindset.

We really need a tongue in cheek emoji. Would’ve placed one after ‘stopped’.

Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.

I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.

I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security

What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?

canta_brian wrote:Anyone thinking of installing the government’s tracking app on their phone?

Personally, I’m not sure handing data from my phone to a government that has spent the last five years exploiting the latest data science to manipulate government messaging is a great idea. When Demis Hassabis is invited to SAGE meetings as a contributor you know that the app will probably work perfectly. However we don’t know the full capabilities of the app and what that version of perfect may entail.

Anyone got any tinfoil? I’m down to my last hat.

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Anyone thinking of installing the government’s tracking app on their phone?

Personally, I’m not sure handing data from my phone to a government that has spent the last five years exploiting the latest data science to manipulate government messaging is a great idea. When Demis Hassabis is invited to SAGE meetings as a contributor you know that the app will probably work perfectly. However we don’t know the full capabilities of the app and what that version of perfect may entail.

Anyone got any tinfoil? I’m down to my last hat.

Why has South Korea done so much better, we ask [emoji6]

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.

I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security

What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?

It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?

It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private

So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private

So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?

You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times

If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?

You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times

If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.

I'd favour making those who can afford it here being privately insured whilst still paying same contribution levels as everyone to the NHS, on the proviso that state provision is of appropriate quality.
One interesting stat I'd like to see at some point is how much the private sector has been paid for reserving beds etc during COVD 19, because up here they have hardly been used, but I bet they still get paid for.

Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times

If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.

I'd favour making those who can afford it here being privately insured whilst still paying same contribution levels as everyone to the NHS, on the proviso that state provision is of appropriate quality.
One interesting stat I'd like to see at some point is how much the private sector has been paid for reserving beds etc during COVD 19, because up here they have hardly been used, but I bet they still get paid for.

If you want to insist people be privately insured you'd need quite a lot of control over insurance firms for those with pre existing conditions or who develop conditions the insurance firms would want bigger returns on. I've no problem with the idea the rich can pay more, but there are limits and even the very rich entails but a tiny number who could meet some catastrophic health costs. The insurance firms left to themselves would turn a number of currently wealth individuals into poverty stricken individuals in health costs, or flood insurance costs, or...

And for myself I'm not sold we don't just tax them more in general tax rather than call tax a number of different things for various hypothecated spends. But if the only way to raise the money overall without overwhelming objection is to accept hypothecation I'd rather have the money than hold out on a point of principle

Just one further on Germany, I know they have a number of what our US friends call copays, and I'm pretty confident one of those is paying to see a doctor, something we lose a lot of money on each year

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.

aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.

aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.

aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.

Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.

Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.

Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.

Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.

Puja

you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.