Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Declan said:

That’s what is most troubling here. Ashy and Howie were keen to say they were following medics advice. But really they were getting filtered information from a non-medically qualified administrator. Should they have recognised that and consulted more widely. 

That was troubling. I’m mentioned a bit in that judgement, and I was on Dr Ranson’s ‘Senior Medical Leadership Team’.  We always thought it odd that we’d make a decision, feed that to ‘Bronze Command’, it then went to Silver before possibly getting to Gold then Comin. It was much easier that one Wednesday afternoon when Dr Ranson and I went over to the government offices with my laptop to show David Ashford and Howard Quayle my latest modelling. I don’t think Kathryn Magson liked that, but she was at home in England at the time so couldn’t go. 
 

Rosalind and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye for the whole time, but she showed great leadership at the start of the pandemic and deserves huge credit for that. She disagreed with my modelling (about a month after the event, with hindsight bias, and at a stage when it had become irrelevant anyway) later on and ‘couldn’t let it go’ (But it was a damn sight more sophisticated, reasoned, and nuanced than that which IOM gov started with) That was when Kathryn Magson told her to move on and she couldn’t/wouldn’t. 
 

I dropped out of the loop shortly after that. We were covid free, and trying to get on with recovering the health service from summer 2020, before covid hit back in January 2021. I found Rosalind somewhat difficult to work with and quit my leadership role partly because of that, trying instead to get on with my day job. Reading that judgement it seems that her spat with Kathryn Magson continued on until Manx Care came into being and she was sidelined. A sad loss, and probably an expensive one for us all.

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The issue isn’t so much about how awful various senior DHSS  ( insert latest variant and logo  ) appointees  have been over a good few years.

Little to be gained by  reiterating something so painfully obvious.

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

Edited by hampsterkahn
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wrighty said:

That was troubling. I’m mentioned a bit in that judgement, and I was on Dr Ranson’s ‘Senior Medical Leadership Team’.  We always thought it odd that we’d make a decision, feed that to ‘Bronze Command’, it then went to Silver before possibly getting to Gold then Comin. It was much easier that one Wednesday afternoon when Dr Ranson and I went over to the government offices with my laptop to show David Ashford and Howard Quayle my latest modelling. I don’t think Kathryn Magson liked that, but she was at home in England at the time so couldn’t go. 
 

Rosalind and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye for the whole time, but she showed great leadership at the start of the pandemic and deserves huge credit for that. She disagreed with my modelling (about a month after the event, with hindsight bias, and at a stage when it had become irrelevant anyway) later on and ‘couldn’t let it go’ (But it was a damn sight more sophisticated, reasoned, and nuanced than that which IOM gov started with) That was when Kathryn Magson told her to move on and she couldn’t/wouldn’t. 
 

I dropped out of the loop shortly after that. We were covid free, and trying to get on with recovering the health service from summer 2020, before covid hit back in January 2021. I found Rosalind somewhat difficult to work with and quit my leadership role partly because of that, trying instead to get on with my day job. Reading that judgement it seems that her spat with Kathryn Magson continued on until Manx Care came into being and she was sidelined. A sad loss, and probably an expensive one for us all.

 

The command structure does seem to be an issue. The politicians would inevitably want best/clear information wherever possible and the structure was probably designed to do that to enable rapid decision making and to filter out chaff. However it seems to have led to the medical uncertainties and legitimate alternative views being cut out too low down and that then being the basis for lots of what happened between two people who plainly pissed each other off. Ranson seeking to bypass Magson etc.
 

Covid response of course wasn’t just a medical issue. There was infrastructure, safety/well-being, economic support, utilities, criminal, logistics, key services etc which had to be handled and decided upon and to do so lawfully. So from that standpoint the elected decision makers needed some filtration. It wasn’t as simple as locking the gates on the ports and shutting everything down which was probably the optimum response if you were a virologist. There was also a need to declare emergency, issue regs etc whenever decisions were made for controls so inevitably some lag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

If ever a post were true ! an exact analogy with the airport, where they appoint one discredited and dismissed director and they in turn employ an ego driven no marks, and of course the outcome is the same shit show !

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ian rush said:

Ranson seeking to bypass Magson etc...

Good post but the above is surely back to front?

I have the impression that it took some time for Ranson to become aware that her advice wasn't being fed up the chain with prejudice.

I might be wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

The issue isn’t so much about how awful various senior DHSS  ( insert latest variant and logo  ) appointees  have been over a good few years.

Little to be gained by  reiterating something so painfully obvious.

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

All this - pan Government.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wrighty said:

Rosalind and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye for the whole time, but she showed great leadership at the start of the pandemic and deserves huge credit for that. She disagreed with my modelling (about a month after the event, with hindsight bias, and at a stage when it had become irrelevant anyway) later on and ‘couldn’t let it go’ (But it was a damn sight more sophisticated, reasoned, and nuanced than that which IOM gov started with) That was when Kathryn Magson told her to move on and she couldn’t/wouldn’t. 

Reading the report (see paras 285 - 308 especially), Ranson's main problem with your graphic wasn't so much with its initial use[1] - which we all agree was helpful in putting the 'spreading the load' point across - but with its continuing use afterwards.  She was afraid people might interpret it as meaning the outbreak was over on whatever day the curve dropped to the axis and that all precautions and travel bans etc could be done away with. 

So she wanted the graph quietly dropped from the website and so but Magson refused because the Minister was "wedded to the graph"[2] and indeed it stayed on the website for many months, looking weirdly dated and mainly illustrating that the government seemed incapable of updating its modelling.

(Reading the report I can see why you wanted well out of it!)

 

[1]  There seems to have been some quibbling about the exact numbers, but that was soon overtaken by events.

[2]  Of course whether this was true or whether Magson was just saying it to spite Ranson is impossible to say as Ashford's recollections seem to be particularly malleable (as the ruling frequently demonstrates.

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

Posted (edited)

The self-serving malicious venal behaviour of the people in positions of power in the former DHSC, who were entrusted with the responsibility of managing public health, has finally been exposed. Hurrah for that! However, this sickening episode is much more than the despicable behaviour of a couple of ‘rogue’ individuals - it was the systemic chronically deficient behaviour of an appalling administration. Yesterday (all) IOM residents, who followed this story, buried their last remaining illusions that the Island had a competent accountable government, which operated professionally in accordance with the rule of law. The comparison made with how Russian politics functions must send shivers down the spine of any reasonable and decent person. 

AC will be making a statement next week. I expect him to say ‘’Lessons will be learnt, and that the culture of government must improve etc, blah blah blah…”, as if the government was a bunch of school children who needed to learn a few crucial lessons about life so that they could behave as functioning adults when entered the world of work. What I don’t expect is for him to address either the insidious failures that occurred not just with the senior administrators, but also their incompetent political masters. Surely, AC must question the competence of the then Health Minister who was, in theory, politically responsible for this entire fiasco. How is it that the same minister is allowed to be in charge of Treasury at a time when the government’s finances are under unprecedented pressures - pressure that will only increase over the next 12 months?  

I also do not expect AC to announce any specific measures, which would result in tangible improvements in either the ethos or culture of government. So, what is to be done to remedy these 'cultural deficiencies'? IMHO, a complete overhaul of every aspect of IOMG/PS/CS, and an independent investigation into the roles of HQ/DA in this sordid saga must be launched with an immediate effect. As confidence in Island’s political system and public institutions has been so dreadfully shattered by what has gone on here, I am also partial to an emergency IOM GE to be called by spring next year at the latest. This time the only candidate that will be guaranteed my vote is those who will demand nothing less than absolute transparency from the IOMG, once they are elected.  

I understand that some people will view my ‘solutions’ as another gigantic waste of time and taxpayers’ money, but without drastic reforms ‘to save ourselves from ourselves’ we might need to be managed by Westminster officials. If that dosen’t cut out the rot, then we may need to be absorbed into the UK. Sadly, I cannot see any other meaningful way forward.

Edited by code99
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the guessing that the covid inquiry nicely glosses over this all? They shut down the economy. Bankrupted people. Caused a mental health crisis and a recession. But in terms of their own behaviour they clearly were just point-scoring and playing childish games with each other. Ewart demanding people stop calling her as she was on holiday when people were losing their jobs due to their stupid lockdown is deplorable! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bandits said:

What’s the guessing that the covid inquiry nicely glosses over this all? They shut down the economy. Bankrupted people. Caused a mental health crisis and a recession. But in terms of their own behaviour they clearly were just point-scoring and playing childish games with each other. Ewart demanding people stop calling her as she was on holiday when people were losing their jobs due to their stupid lockdown is deplorable! 

That would be my guess, they have no desire to tackle the problems as highlighted by the new DHSS CEO being appointed even though she was heavily involved in this.

I don't think we are too far away from people in the streets demanding change.

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

5 minutes ago, Bandits said:

What’s the guessing that the covid inquiry nicely glosses over this all? They shut down the economy. Bankrupted people. Caused a mental health crisis and a recession. But in terms of their own behaviour they clearly were just point-scoring and playing childish games with each other. Ewart demanding people stop calling her as she was on holiday when people were losing their jobs due to their stupid lockdown is deplorable! 

I don't think there is a suggestion that the lockdown was wrong and if the medics were listened to it wouldn't have happened. If anything it would have been implemented earlier without these shenanigans, although we don't no for sure. 

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

Another quote from the report that pins down Ashford like a butterfly - all his evasions beautifully displayed:

603. In his witness statement, the Minister had also commented that Dr Ranson had been free to contact him. That is rather like saying the Ritz Hotel is open to all. It was not the evidence of Miss Magson nor the evidence of Dr Allinson. The Tribunal considered that, during 2020 Miss Magson would have been irritated to the point of reprimand following any (further) approach by Dr Ranson to the Minister. Dr Ranson had already been warned not to contact him direct. It was clear from Dr Allinson’s evidence that the Minister would not have welcomed direct contact either. Minister Ashford only wanted to be approached through the command structure.

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

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Another quote from the report that pins down Ashford like a butterfly - all his evasions beautifully displayed:

603. In his witness statement, the Minister had also commented that Dr Ranson had been free to contact him. That is rather like saying the Ritz Hotel is open to all. It was not the evidence of Miss Magson nor the evidence of Dr Allinson. The Tribunal considered that, during 2020 Miss Magson would have been irritated to the point of reprimand following any (further) approach by Dr Ranson to the Minister. Dr Ranson had already been warned not to contact him direct. It was clear from Dr Allinson’s evidence that the Minister would not have welcomed direct contact either. Minister Ashford only wanted to be approached through the command structure.

She could always send an anonymous letter to his home address.

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

11 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

The issue isn’t so much about how awful various senior DHSS  ( insert latest variant and logo  ) appointees  have been over a good few years.

Little to be gained by  reiterating something so painfully obvious.

It would be more useful to explore “ how” these appointments are made and especially by  “ whom”.

Whoever they are, they are the ones who deserve scrutiny.

They are  consistent in making disastrous choices on our behalf.

I suspect the same fingerprints are on many of these appointments (John Spicer, Angela Murray, Rosalind Ranson, Catrherine Magson, Gemserve......)

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...