Jump to content

John Wright

Moderators
  • Posts

    14,530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    86

Everything posted by John Wright

  1. Strange, but not having the vaccine seems to make some people very vulnerable to conspiracy theories. Surprisingly there’s a free protection available - vaccine.
  2. Not me. I've spent 12 months on an NHS quango. The last 8 I've been bullied and isolated by the longest serving member. I'm about to whistleblow.
  3. Bet you aren’t half as keen on being fair by giving visa waiver free access to the UK and equal treatment by immigration officers to Syrians or Afghans, or Yemenis or Somalis, or Libyans, etc. you get the picture? And you overlook the reason for the EU passport lane. It was reciprocal because we got, in at least as great numbers, the right to live, work, travel, retire, as they, through economic self interest that worked well. We didn’t have to leave the EU, and even if we left we didn’t have to leave the EEA, or choose to become a third country outside the customs Union or single market. It was never in the wildest dreams of Farage or ERG to drop out so fast so far. It was to be a staged step by step approach. But after the referendum, and the unexpected win, caused at least in part by BoJo changing sides due to naked ambition, and the dithering of May, there was a hard right, hard Brexit, coup.
  4. I’m not ridiculing anything. I’m asking for information so as to gauge the extent of the problem here. Of course, you’d expect a certain number of people who are vaccinated in a campaign to vaccinate 60 million people in UK, and 80,000 in Isle of Man, to have heart attacks, or die, within 28 days of being vaccinated. That’s the law of averages/coincidence when numbers are so large. How many have been actually medically attributed to the vaccine, by doctors or a coroner? Have you considered that it may not be being publicised because there is little or no connection and the number of cases is low. The island has delivered 120,000 doses, approx. I’ve had 4. I’m due my 5th soon. I had a sore arm once for 24 hours. My partner, 3 doses, had flu like symptoms for 3 days after dose 2. Either of us could have filed a yellow card report.
  5. Please enlighten us what the alleged serious adverse reactions of your group members and from the pfizer data are. The yellow card system is run by the UK for itself and the IoM. Why should the IoM need a separate system? Most of the yellow card events appear to be sore arms, sniffles, flu like symptoms for a couple of days.
  6. The Guernsey franchised bus operator is having even worse problems and isn't meeting it's mandated service level agreement by a large degree
  7. That totally ignores the nature of the service and origins of the Steam Packet. It’s to provide a reliable frequent service for residents. It also ignores modern supply chain logistics for shops and supermarkets. Most of all it ignores that losses in 20/21 and 21/22 were due to exceptional circumstances that have now resolved.
  8. Artist’s impression. The actual link span is delivered and on site waiting installation
  9. Nothing worse than a rubbed flange.
  10. It’s a McGreggor. We all know what happened last time we had one of those.
  11. Ranson was, from appointment to 31/3/21 DHSC medical director with responsibility for medical staff at Nobles AND IoM GP’s. She was MD designate for Manx Care with same responsibilities, supposed to take up duties on 1/4/21. She was on Bronze/Silver - but not Gold Command. Declan is saying that because Magson, as CEO of DHSC, wasn’t present, Ranson should have been on Gold Command. I agree.
  12. Totally. She should have been on Gold Command. Not just Bronze/Silver. I questioned above who was responsible for deciding who was at each level. I suspect Greenhow.
  13. It was temporary, fixed term, two year, secondment to oversee the transition. Started Jan 2020, I think. And but for covid there’s nothing to say she wouldn’t have done her three long days
  14. But that wasn’t the idea or intention. It was 3 x 10 hour days on island and available from home the rest of the working week. In case you hadn’t noticed, from March 2020, that became legally impossible.
  15. So a lawyer who won’t admit to his authorship and a letter ( allegedly drafted by the anonymous lawyer ) that makes serious claims but doesn’t actually identify which clauses cause the alleged issue and how, NB. Anyone can call themselves a lawyer. It’s not a protected professional designation. It implies no legal qualification. Says it all really.
  16. Read the amendments yourself. Then tell us which clause has the effect you claim? You won’t be able to. But I do understand that cognitive dissonance will stop you, and those you follow, from accepting the truth. Im not being dismissive. I’m basing what I say on the actual wording of the amendment.
  17. Boswellian. It is fake news. The authors are well known for fake news. Yes, amendments to the International Health Regulations are planned. The aim is to ease communication, exchange of information and data and the offer of support in case of health crises and pandemics. If a country has a problem and refuses to provide information, or support or to take action the WHO would then be able to name and shame that country. It wouldn’t be able to interfere in the internal affairs of the delinquent non compliant country. All other members of WHO would still be free to implement, or not, as they chose, the WHO guidance and proposals about that delinquent country. Theres a little bit of truth, as there is in all the best paranoid fake news stories. The regulations are being amended. But not to do as alleged.
  18. She isn’t qualified. Different discipline.
  19. But that would sideline, in part, at the very least, the current post holder. That’s another constructive unfair dismissal case. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
  20. Doesn’t someone else now occupy the role on a substantive basis. So, you’d unfairly dismiss that person?
  21. I’ve thought long and hard before posting this. The issue is generating a lot of heat, across several topics. I’ll try to deal with several questions, separately. Views my own. Not a government shill. Want to try and give some perspective above the baying for blood. 1. Is the E&ET case still sub judice. Well, as usual it’s a split answer. Once a case starts it’s sub judice from that point on until everything is determined. But sub judice doesn’t mean that it can’t be reported or commented upon. Some bits might be sub judice and best avoided and result in contempt proceedings, others not. So, liability is determined. No appeal or review has been announced. It’s open season for comment and conclusion drawing. But speculation about the remedy and about the evidential questions now to be determined is still covered by sub judice, although it’s hard to see how remedy could be compromised, less so the allegation of failure to disclose and the “faking” of documents put in evidence. If you’re a politician it’s probably better to avoid those aspects. But expressing a view about the liability finding is OK. 2. Ashford. I have a sympathy for his position. He seems to me to be the victim of the command structure system. It’s a good workable system, properly run and operated with the right people at the right levels. The idea is to focus and funnel the information to the political decision maker so that they aren’t overwhelmed by too much background noise. Quite who decided Dr Ranson shouldn’t sit on gold, I don’t know. I’d have thought with a situation like covid, and with the competing responsibilities of Ewart, Magson and Ranson ( public health, the health and social care system and medical ) surely all three should have been at the highest level. Clearly, it’s best if consensus is reached about issues at each level, to be moved up from Bronze, to Silver, to Gold and to the minister & CoMin. It isn’t always possible. That places a duty on the spokesperson or convenor funnelling the info upwards with a duty to highlight areas of dispute, however strong their feelings the other way. 3. political decision making. The scientists and medics can advise all they want. The science doesn’t rule everything. Politicians have to factor in economics, short, medium and long term, plus mental health effects of fortress lock down. The truth is there is no right, or wrong answer. But being fed wrong or misleading information based on personality or disagreement or game playing is not optimal. My personal view is that short, sharp lock down, much earlier, not just in March 2020, but in September, December/January 2021 and March 2021 would have been better. And backed up by strenuous and consistent testing entrants ( including essential workers and seamen ) before entry, after a few days and after 10/14 days, plus quarantine. Clearly the sidelining of Ranson in signing off the vaccination programme until the last minute is inexplicable and unforgivable. It was politically inept in its effect on perception. However, given how fast we actually had the vaccination programme delivered I’m not qualified to speculate on effect, adverse or otherwise. When you have an information filtering system to ensure the best evidence and advice gets to the decision maker(s) it’s not a good idea to allow dissident pathways to spring up. So, I think Ashford was probably correct not to listen to Ranson outside the “system”. However, the two top doctors, Ewart and Ranson, should have been constantly talking, both within and without the command structure. And then talking to the person in charge of the DHSC, Magson. That fell down. It fell down on Ashford watch. In my view that’s where he has weakness. He was politically responsible for a system that didn’t work in an emergency. 4. Malone. I know Karen. She was deputy CEO in DHSC. Her CEO was not on island, due to her 3 day per week contract being frustrated by covid travel regulations. Wasn’t what she did/was asked to do in reporting to her boss exactly what she was supposed to do? 5. I see Dr Glover has returned. I read everything she posts with respect, but with the caveat that she has an axe to grind, her own disputes and I try and bear that in mind when evaluating. Her testing expertise is unchallenged. We all owe a debt of gratitude. But I can’t make my mind out whether the two big disputes show her in a good light. I partly agree with her, the testing regime should have been more rigorous and consistent. I don’t find myself in agreement about the need for the genotyping to identify strain. I’m still not convinced it would have changed the timing or scope of lockdowns. It’s academically, but not pragmatically or politically important. I suspect it’s another personality clash, people within the system not able to agree, or concede. The way she appears to have been treated at one stage appears just as bad as the treatment of Ranson. When I read her analyses I feel there is a lack of awareness of the political aspect of decision making, and a lack of recognition of the importance of a structured delivery up to the decision maker of the relevant information, which isn’t all or only scientific. 6. My conclusion is simple. Things did go wrong. We ended up with the wrong people, in the wrong places, having the ear of CoMin. So, Ashford, yes he should resign. Ewart should forward plan leaving/retiring and advertising for her job take place. But Public Health shouldn’t be in cabinet office, or DHSC, but Manx Care. We are after all supposed to be integrating health and care. It’s too late to bring Ranson back in. We now have a Manx Care structure. We need to get on with it. It was born at a time of crisis, not just covid, but the previous failures of DHSC to deliver and of Treasury to adequately fund. It’s making progress. We need stability. Andy asked which of Ranson & Ewart was senior? Good question. Same level, different disciplines and responsibilities is my view. But with public health semi detached in cabinet office that’s not clear. And wherever PH sits there needs to be a mediation process when/if the two senior medics disagree in future. Presumably the CEO?
  22. 3. The same selection process that gave jobs to Dr Dirk, Angela Murray, Ian Longworth, Charters, Charters, Maison. Got to be right. As for 1. Heavens knows why they ran the defence the way they did. But remember, lawyers are only as good as the instructions they’re given. If DHSC and Magson were in total denial at all stages of instruction and preparation. This was one to resolve, very early, just like Tinwell. interesting reference to Tinwell. It appears to still be alive as to remedy. That implies that DHSC caved, mid hearing, on liability.
×
×
  • Create New...