Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2557

  • TheTeapot

    1386

  • Gladys

    1287

  • Nom de plume

    1024

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

I agree; Doyle would not have said this unless he was pressured to, from high above

He maintains, quite clearly and emphatically, that he didn't say it at all.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And so it begins:- the, 'he said she said' scenario, destined to drag on for long months. It is what is provable that matters, the nitty-gritty. With so much hearsay being touted it will be too easy for this 'affair' to become distracted, bogged-down in minutiae and deliberately elaborated obfuscation when it is the facts which matter.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned I dont give a toss about ego's and the likes which clearly have played a part in all this . What concerns me is whats best for the population of the IOM . Would we have been better served with Dr Glover on board for the whole journey or not ? . From my little knowledge and having followed this throughout it seems a no brainer and we needed her expertise from day one and to this day. Ego's often have to take a back seat for the greater good but looks like CS and Government are to entrenched in there habits of a lifetime to step back. Quite sad really and also being that its probably made us all suffer more than we needed also incompetent on many levels too.   

Edited by Numbnuts
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

As far as I'm concerned I dont give a toss about ego's and the likes which clearly have played a part in all this . What concerns me is whats best for the population of the IOM . Would we have been better served with Dr Glover on board for the whole journey or not ? . From my little knowledge and having followed this throughout it seems a no brainer and we needed her expertise from day one and to this day. Ego's often have to take a back seat for the greater good but looks like CS and Government are to entrenched in there habits of a lifetime to step back. Quite sad really and also being that its probably made us all suffer more than we needed also incompetent on many levels too.   

Whilst you are of course correct that it helps to have all the talent you have available, and the whole saga is a mess, can we really say, hand on heart that things would have been that much different. We would still have had the 3 lockdowns imho.

Saying that, with the significance of the variants increasing as the prevalence of the virus reduces does,again imho, start to justify knowing the strains as quickly as possible and 2 weeks is just rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gladys said:

If he said "they" rather than "we", it could be interpreted as a friendly warning. 

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Incompetence. The highest qualification for a chief minister/civil service senior member. Oh and a thick skin.

And an even thicker skull!

Edited by finlo
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

I've known Steve for years and as you say he is one of the good guys. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

Thanks for that perspective.  Is there a management supported and strong whistle blowing culture at DHSC?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  

Anything that comes at a cost means a case has to be made to justify the expenditure.

Now I obviously know nothing about your example but I have come across corporate drones, typically VPs, who don't like to admit they don't have much of a budget or rather don't have one at all...

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wrighty said:

 

 

Steve is one of the good guys.

I never heard of him until today but I saw the authenticity in his post. Steve has been used, (professionally of course), as has Rachel. Used in different ways of course.

They’re both good people I’m sure. 

Now of course, we will be ‘directed’ to see this as a he said she said issue and they will blow it up in order to keep us from the real issues that are going on. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roxanne said:

I never heard of him until today but I saw the authenticity in his post. Steve has been used, (professionally of course), as has Rachel. Used in different ways of course.

They’re both good people I’m sure. 

Now of course, we will be ‘directed’ to see this as a he said she said issue and they will blow it up in order to keep us from the real issues that are going on. 

Well it was always destined to be a "he said she said" situation.

The reality is both sides with have their take on events.  It doesn't necessarily mean either are wrong.  Quite often the exact truth is in the middle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Whilst you are of course correct that it helps to have all the talent you have available, and the whole saga is a mess, can we really say, hand on heart that things would have been that much different. We would still have had the 3 lockdowns imho.

Saying that, with the significance of the variants increasing as the prevalence of the virus reduces does,again imho, start to justify knowing the strains as quickly as possible and 2 weeks is just rubbish.

We would have had results alot quicker though instead of going to Liverpool and the unexplained cases identified quicker . I said weeks ago on here when you go to war you take all the ammunition and assets you possibly can. We really dont know how much more Rachel could have helped as she wasnt allowed too. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Re the negative press thing. I know Steve Doyle, and either know, or know of the people who are (or in some cases, were) higher up the food chain.  I’ve also met and chatted to Rachel a fair bit.

In my view, if Steve ‘threatened’ Rachel with negative press it will have been to illustrate what DHSC might do to retaliate, hypothetically. Whether he said ‘we’ or ‘they’ is immaterial - he will have meant ‘they’, and like all of us may not even know precisely who ‘they’ are.

This corporate anonymity thing bothers me sometimes.  I was once part of a committee, and on that committee was the DHSC CEO (I can’t even count how many have been since, it’s a while ago).  The committee made a suggestion, and he said “well that sounds ok, I’ll take it back to the department and see what they say”.  I challenged him, asking him what he meant, taking it back to ‘them’ as he was the Chief Exec so why not just do it.  Received a whole load of jargon doublespeak in reply.  
 

Steve is one of the good guys.

'Them' would be the Department chaired by the Minister and attended by the Departmental Members (i.e. Politicians assigned to the Dept) and the various Heads of the Divisions. Depending on the decision to be taken, if it were political, then the Minister would have to sign off as legally he/she is accountable. For routine admin things the CEO can approve as long as there are no direct political implications that could backfire on the Minister/Members. The Minister is the quasi equivalent of a Chairman of a company in the private sector. Further, a IOM Govt Minister can decide which CEO he will will /will not work with especially when a IOM Govt CEO post falls vacant. Irrespective of who is the best candidate, if the sitting Minister does not like the best person as determined through interview / psychometric testing etc, he can state he wants "AN other" of those shortlisted and it goes to them - even although the Minister in rarely in a Dept more than a few years and the CEO can be there for decades! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...