Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

They weren't taking her advice as she wasn't staff, if you remember, that is part of the furore.

They must have been taking her advise in some areas as they took on her services, maybe didn’t give her the medal she though she deserved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Agree, but if she was "on the team" perhaps she may have seen the chink in the armour.  I am still dumbfounded at HE's reaction to PM's revelation that the SP staff didn't isolate. 

This was my point.

"Yes, you've said it all Chief Minister, I can't add anything to that. . . . .  etc etc" are not words that you would hear once let alone repeatedly from RG's or many other professionals under these circumstance.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhumsaa said:

It's a hell of a claim to suggest that RG could have stopped the last two lockdowns

I'm not saying the IOM Gov is right in all of this but also I don't think RG's services are that powerful?

It's more about advice and knowledge I think.  It's fairly clear that the January outbreak could have been prevented with a more rigorous and extensive use of testing, something that Rachel and many others had been advocating for long before. 

It's possible that the same thing would have applied to the February outbreak as well - certainly you would have expected regular testing of Steam Packet staff anyway and certainly after a UK-based crew member tested positive.  But even if the outbreak had started it could have been halted with much speedier action[1] and genomics would have been essential in making sure that that was effective and enabling lockdown to be lifted much faster.

 

[1]  New Zealand had an outbreak at almost exactly the same time.  Auckland was locked down at 6 am the day after the first positive result.  We waited a fortnight until maybe a thousand people were infected.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more about advice and knowledge I think.

Exactly this.

Covid was a dogshit/pothole subject. Everyone could talk about it and everyone seemed to have an opinion, not least the politicians. And if you knew what was best for you, just agree with the politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Well, as much a lot on here won't like, there are two sides to the story.

Of which, you have heard one side direct from the horses mouth, but are going to have to wait months it seems for the other side to get their story (stories?) all together (if at all). Yet it seems that you already take the side of that which has not yet been brought into the open? 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

The Department was disappointed that Taxa Genomics, particularly as an on Island provider, did not feel able to respond to the required DHSC governance arrangements. Taxa then took the decision to withdraw all potential services including failing to supply reagent consumables in breach of an agreement it had entered into with the department.

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

That’s quite a damning statement, I sincerely hope they have the evidence to back it up.

Like much of this response this was already covered in Rachel Glover's evidence to the PAC.  From memory[1] Taxa Genomics had been supplying the reagents for testing.  After Rachel disengaged, she suggested that if they wanted to continue this, it should be put on a more formal basis.  As has been discussed here, even before the PAC evidence, the DHSC/AG's Office insisted on there being liability clauses that any supplier would not accept and so TG decided not to become their permanent supplier.  Apart from anything else it's not their core business they were only doing it because they had the contacts for their own supplies. 

Before ceasing supply, Rachel checked to see if alternatives had been found and was assured they had been.  Several days later she  was contacted begging for more reagents because this actually hadn't been done and they had completely run out.

Even in its own terms this response, consisting almost entirely of weasel words, doesn't make much sense.  How can you "withdraw all potential services"?  Something that is potential by definition doesn't exist yet - how can it be withdrawn.  Similarly if TG decided not "to respond to the required DHSC governance arrangements" then they can't have been in breech of an agreement that didn't exist.

The whole statement is basically the government having a hissy fit that someone didn't do their own job for them.

 

[1]  Hansard still isn't up yet (I did warn that Committees get published slowly) but the oral evidence is here:

Dr Rachel Glover, Chief Scientific Officer, Taxa Genomics Limited.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Dr Glover was invited to become part of the DHSC’s governance structures last year by its medical director and relevant clinical director,

Had not heard this before? Or was it Dr Glover wanted to be advising CoMin directly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more about advice and knowledge I think.  It's fairly clear that the January outbreak could have been prevented with a more rigorous and extensive use of testing, something that Rachel and many others had been advocating for long before. 

It's possible that the same thing would have applied to the February outbreak as well - certainly you would have expected regular testing of Steam Packet staff anyway and certainly after a UK-based crew member tested positive.  But even if the outbreak had started it could have been halted with much speedier action[1] and genomics would have been essential in making sure that that was effective and enabling lockdown to be lifted much faster.

 

[1]  New Zealand had an outbreak at almost exactly the same time.  Auckland was locked down at 6 am the day after the first positive result.  We waited a fortnight until maybe a thousand people were infected.

Agreed, the January lockdown could easily have been prevented if the government had actually brought in the 3 test strategy earlier as many including Dr Glover were asking for. I believe it could actually have been prevented if when they brought the rule in, they had applied it immediately rather than saying it was only for those arriving after a specific date in the future

For this lockdown, Dr Glover was very clear on twitter saying that at the start of the outbreak, since it was the new strain, we should be testing school children and be more cautious since it was a more transmissible strain. Instead all we got from our leaders was that the strain doesn't make any difference (which has been blatantly proved wrong) and the whole nonsense around it's all ok as it's all part of the same cluster. If, and it's a big if, they had listened to Dr Glover, we would have been locked down earlier and so, in my opinion, would have got it under control a lot quicker.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

I doubt it, she was on the team at the time last year but didn’t see the chink in the armour.    At the end of the day all this self promotion on social media is free publicity for her business.  

Like all that free publicity on the island is going to drum up loads of new business for her company.

New business from who exactly and doing what? 

Would you say the same if NASA got a load of coverage on the island?

We all need space rockets as much as we need genomics..............

Edited by Boris Johnson
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Manx Yeller said:

Agreed, the January lockdown could easily have been prevented if the government had actually brought in the 3 test strategy earlier as many including Dr Glover were asking for. I believe it could actually have been prevented if when they brought the rule in, they had applied it immediately rather than saying it was only for those arriving after a specific date in the future

For this lockdown, Dr Glover was very clear on twitter saying that at the start of the outbreak, since it was the new strain, we should be testing school children and be more cautious since it was a more transmissible strain. Instead all we got from our leaders was that the strain doesn't make any difference (which has been blatantly proved wrong) and the whole nonsense around it's all ok as it's all part of the same cluster. If, and it's a big if, they had listened to Dr Glover, we would have been locked down earlier and so, in my opinion, would have got it under control a lot quicker.

My simple analysis is that the three test wouldn’t have made much difference. It was testing all the household and separate isolation that would have helped avoid lockdown 2 and locking down a week earlier would have reduced lockdown 3.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...