Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Terminal said:

Dr. Glover has offered to sequence the latest 2 cases for free today to find the original source. Given that contact tracing probably won’t be told the whole truth for fear of repercussions that would be very useful. 

olive branch of the century , but unlikely to grasped.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terminal said:

Dr. Glover has offered to sequence the latest 2 cases for free today to find the original source. Given that contact tracing probably won’t be told the whole truth for fear of repercussions that would be very useful. 

 

18 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

What a wonderful opportunity for IOM government to act with the best interests of the GMP with these two unexplained cases.

I wonder if they will take it?

Their default position is ‘stonewalling’ but with so much publicity over the last few weeks, perhaps they may find the GMP recognises this opportunity and urge them to take it  

 

 

5 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

olive branch of the century , but unlikely to grasped.

Unless Dr G has access to the genomics of people who tested positive in lockdown 3 she can’t link to anything/anyone.

Its extremely good PR, however.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

Unless Dr G has access to the genomics of people who tested positive in lockdown 3 she can’t link to anything/anyone.

Its extremely good PR, however.

I’m sure the government would be open to letting her company use their previously known genomics results if they really wanted to make use of her offer? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, manxst said:

I’m sure the government would be open to letting her company use their previously known genomics results if they really wanted to make use of her offer? 

Hence “unless”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

Unless Dr G has access to the genomics of people who tested positive in lockdown 3 she can’t link to anything/anyone.

Its extremely good PR, however.

But she can state if the current cases are linked - and part of a single cluster and the variant - all of which would be useful to shape response. Not one mention of genomic testing in the exit strategy framework even after the motion passed in Tynwald from Hooper - FFS. Ashy out. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fluffy123 said:

But she can state if the current cases are linked - and part of a single cluster and the variant - all of which would be useful to shape response. Not one mention of genomic testing in the exit strategy framework even after the motion passed in Tynwald from Hooper - FFS. Ashy out. 

Is there any different response protocol if it’s Kent, South Africa or Indian variant?

We already know that today’s 3 cases are linked to either or both yesterday’s 2 cases as they were tested as a result of track, trace, test/111 and were already in isolation ( which can only mean living with or close prolonged contact with cases 1 & 2 )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Hence “unless”

It appeared to everyone but yourself that you were insinuating that Dr Glover couldn’t do anything to assist, but that “it was good PR” and nothing else. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, manxst said:

It appeared to everyone but yourself that you were insinuating that Dr Glover couldn’t do anything to assist, but that “it was good PR” and nothing else. 

You don’t think that there’s tactics in play? On both sides?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

 

 

Unless Dr G has access to the genomics of people who tested positive in lockdown 3 she can’t link to anything/anyone.

Its extremely good PR, however.

If the Government took up my offer they'd have to send both samples and the anonymised COG-UK genomic sequence accessions for me to link them up. Not much point having one without the other. 

What do you mean by "extremely good PR". PR for what? Which of the products my company sells (which aren't linked to or talked about on my Twitter) are the great manx public going to be compelled to purchase after an offer like that?

I would suggest you perhaps be a little less cynical and understand that when you pass someone having a heart attack in the street, you offer to help, you don't walk past. You certainly don't expect people to say "he's only offering to do those chest compressions because it'll be good PR". 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rachomics said:

If the Government took up my offer they'd have to send both samples and the anonymised COG-UK genomic sequence accessions for me to link them up. Not much point having one without the other. 

What do you mean by "extremely good PR". PR for what? Which of the products my company sells (which aren't linked to or talked about on my Twitter) are the great manx public going to be compelled to purchase after an offer like that?

I would suggest you perhaps be a little less cynical and understand that when you pass someone having a heart attack in the street, you offer to help, you don't walk past. You certainly don't expect people to say "he's only offering to do those chest compressions because it'll be good PR". 

Rachel, they’re not the same though, are they. And the guy doing compressions isn’t involved in a public war or words with anyone, or threatening to sue.

I’ve 40 years litigation experience. I’m not cynical or naive about what potential litigants, on both sides, do to improve perception of their position, I’m just experienced.

I await the outcome. Just hope it doesn’t settle with an NDA. But I’m not going to make my mind up until I’ve seen and heard both sides. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrespective of the war of words between RG and DA etc if she can help then we can accept it ?

I don't care about the litigation issues right now but I agree about the NDA. Always hated them. Seen too many used in the past when it was more important to learn the lessons instead.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, rachomics said:

If the Government took up my offer they'd have to send both samples and the anonymised COG-UK genomic sequence accessions for me to link them up. Not much point having one without the other. 

What do you mean by "extremely good PR". PR for what? Which of the products my company sells (which aren't linked to or talked about on my Twitter) are the great manx public going to be compelled to purchase after an offer like that?

I would suggest you perhaps be a little less cynical and understand that when you pass someone having a heart attack in the street, you offer to help, you don't walk past. You certainly don't expect people to say "he's only offering to do those chest compressions because it'll be good PR". 

 

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Rachel, they’re not the same though, are they. And the guy doing compressions isn’t involved in a public war or words with anyone, or threatening to sue.

I’ve 40 years litigation experience. I’m not cynical or naive about what potential litigants, on both sides, do to improve perception of their position, I’m just experienced.

I await the outcome. Just hope it doesn’t settle with an NDA. But I’m not going to make my mind up until I’ve seen and heard both sides. 

 

John Wright, it would appear that on the contrary you have already made your mind up .

You may well have 40 years litigation experience  including , I understand, being criticised by your own IOM professional  body for improper conduct.

I have had 30 years experience ,as a PHI/EHO in dealing with infectious diseases  and I find your comments unhelpful and frankly 'nasty'.

I'm aware that to "question a mod" results in a ban , confirmed in an email citing "spamming" as the reason, so perhaps it is now the time (as there may not be another 😂)to say  I find your moderation of this site  at times 'unfortunate' .

Just saying.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, paswt said:

 

John Wright, it would appear that on the contrary you have already made your mind up .

You may well have 40 years litigation experience  including , I understand, being criticised by your own IOM professional  body for improper conduct.

I have had 30 years experience ,as a PHI/EHO in dealing with infectious diseases  and I find your comments unhelpful and frankly 'nasty'.

I'm aware that to "question a mod" results in a ban , confirmed in an email citing "spamming" as the reason, so perhaps it is now the time (as there may not be another 😂)to say  I find your moderation of this site  at times 'unfortunate' .

Just saying.

Certainly not made my mind up. Posted repeatedly that we need to see/hear the evidence from both sides. And this isn’t the place given that advocates have apparently been instructed.

As for moderation, the moderators act as a team. We’ve publicly requested, after discussion,  that Dr Glover doesn’t use this social media in the way she was to avoid any allegation of contempt after she has said she had arranged for advocates to issue letters before action, twice now, alleged unfair dismissal, and use of her intellectual property, and both sides have reported matters to the police..

You conflate and confuse two matters. My position and role as a moderator. And my personal views and posting. 

My personal view is that the cult of St Rachel in a litigation situation is unfortunate. I’m as entitled to say that, as are you to disagree.

As a moderator I’m not going to moderate you for personal attacks. It wouldn’t be right. If I post as a moderator I try and make it clear. I’m sorry, personally, you dislike the moderation. It’s a moderated environment.
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

You don’t think that there’s tactics in play? On both sides?

Quite honestly the time to ponder the truth or otherwise of the claims of Dr Glover & HQ/DA is not now. Dr Glover has made a generous offer. It seems apparent that egos, once again, seem more important than the safety of residents.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 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...