UK Politics - It's a bit glitchy

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I heard on the news today that one of the UK Vaccines is looking very promising and may be ready to start distributing publicly before Xmas. - this to me seems highly optimistic and we certainly won't get everyone (those able and willing) vaccinated in time for Xmas even if we could start vaccinating today.

 

Assuming we do get a vaccine who 1) Should receive it first and 2) the Government will decide who gets it first.

 

for 1  I'd say  start with the areas in the highest alert levels - since that is where its supposed to be spreading fasted.  Give to NHS, then other frontline services.  then more widely those shielding + care homes and essential workers.   then the rest of the public interacting service staff (so restaurant and non-essential shops)    Gradually spread out to other areas on an infection rate basis.   Then I guess the general public on an age based thing   Do school to University aged,  and Oldest first for the rest.  

 

my prediction for 2 will be  -  we will officially start with the NHS,  after a brief public start the NHS will only get a trickle of vaccines for themselves, most of the vaccines will be given to MP's and their families then people with lots of money will be able to buy an early vaccine, then the government will concentrate on areas that vote Tory.

[A wilding]

59 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Remarkable.

Serco has downgraded the use of trained healthcare professionals and recruited young (as young as 18) people to work in the test and trace system. Some of these 18 years old are being asked to make clinical decisions about people's health with no formal training whatsoever, and talk to people who have just lost loved ones without any kind of bereavement counselling training. The authorisation to make this change came from the government, which the government has admitted (but claimed was voluntary, which was not the case).

We're beyond "shitshow" at this point into some kind of diarrhoea storm of Tory incompetence.

The thing the gets me is that Serco are currently making obscene, record breaking profits out of this. While at the same time persuading the government that the job they contracted to do is too hard and that they should be allowed to only do a half arsed effort at it without any penalty.

In a desperate situation it might be acceptable as a last ditch thing for the government to throw untrained people into the fire like this, but to do it just to make more money for the already wealthy

I really think that in a just world, some people would be going to jail over this.

[dog-days]

The logrolling and corruption has been horrendous. It's getting to the point though where I just kind of shrug it off because reports of incidents about jobs going to people who are qualified for them because they're in Boris's circle are so common. One gets desensitized. And memories of the response to the Iraq War have trained me to believe that the public in Britain will accept anything, as long as the government carries on promising improved public services without tax rises. 

I was wondering - does anyone know if things worked like this in WW2 with contracts going to friends rather than the most competent? I don't generally approve of WW2 analogies because they're so ubiquitous and generally serve a dodgy purpose when used by a journalist or politician, but it would be interesting to know if the reflex of the governing classes in the forties was still to find someone they liked then give a lot of public money to them.  

Obviously, politics was very different back then, with a small social elite from the same social background holding power...oh...wait...

[ants]

13 hours ago, Werthead said:

Remarkable.

Serco has downgraded the use of trained healthcare professionals and recruited young (as young as 18) people to work in the test and trace system. Some of these 18 years old are being asked to make clinical decisions about people's health with no formal training whatsoever, and talk to people who have just lost loved ones without any kind of bereavement counselling training. The authorisation to make this change came from the government, which the government has admitted (but claimed was voluntary, which was not the case).

We're beyond "shitshow" at this point into some kind of diarrhoea storm of Tory incompetence.

To be honest, I don't think that is a problem as well as they're getting the right training.  If someone is doing contract tracing with someone who has died, that means the contract tracing is 2-4 weeks behind where it should be.  Nobody should be contract traced at that point.  Anyone spending time with someone with COVID should be in lockdown.  For the medical side it should be black or white recommendations, or passing onto an expert. 

The training shouldn't be medical or bereavement.  It should be with police officers on how to tease out full information from someone interviewed, especially if they're not cooperative.  Training on all the different elements they should be being asked; have they gone out, where, when, who interacted with, coming back around and asking confirming questions.

And it should be supported by GPS data from their phone.  

[Werthead]

The estimates now are that 100,000 people are being infected a day in the UK, which is not quite at the estimated peak levels but very close. I can't see how Boris can resist calls for a lockdown much longer, with some Conservative MPs now admitting it's likely and the scientific advisor flatly saying it's been their advice for the last month, at least. Almost 30,000 recorded infections yesterday and over 300 deaths for the first time since May make that more likely.

I suspect it won't be quite as strict as the first lockdown with maybe primary schools remaining open and some exceptions, but Boris has screwed the pooch on this one whilst also missing the bus.

[A wilding]

7 hours ago, ants said:

To be honest, I don't think that is a problem as well as they're getting the right training.  If someone is doing contract tracing with someone who has died, that means the contract tracing is 2-4 weeks behind where it should be.  Nobody should be contract traced at that point.  Anyone spending time with someone with COVID should be in lockdown.  For the medical side it should be black or white recommendations, or passing onto an expert. 

The training shouldn't be medical or bereavement.  It should be with police officers on how to tease out full information from someone interviewed, especially if they're not cooperative.  Training on all the different elements they should be being asked; have they gone out, where, when, who interacted with, coming back around and asking confirming questions.

And it should be supported by GPS data from their phone.  

Well the whole thing is such a mess it is perhaps pointless to try to pick on a single point.

But the bottom line is that Serco is being paid, by the taxpayer, to provide experienced clinicians to do this work. Instead they are giving it to minimum wage recruits whose sole training, according to the article, consists of (and from my indirect anecdotal experience of outsourcing companies this is all too plausible):

Quote

...  four hours. It was conducted remotely, as they now work from home, and consisted of a PowerPoint presentation, an online conversation, a quiz, some e-learning modules and some new call scripts.

 

[Heartofice]

Corbyn suspended from the Labour party! wow. 

[A wilding]

Yes indeed. Have to see what happens now ...

[Maltaran]

StarmerOut is trending on Twitter 

[karaddin]

21 hours ago, Werthead said:

Remarkable.

Serco has downgraded the use of trained healthcare professionals and recruited young (as young as 18) people to work in the test and trace system. Some of these 18 years old are being asked to make clinical decisions about people's health with no formal training whatsoever, and talk to people who have just lost loved ones without any kind of bereavement counselling training. The authorisation to make this change came from the government, which the government has admitted (but claimed was voluntary, which was not the case).

We're beyond "shitshow" at this point into some kind of diarrhoea storm of Tory incompetence.

If capitalism was actually a meritocracy then serco would never get another government contract in either of our countries due to their constant fuck ups and manifest incompetence. Instead they'll be rewarded with an even bigger share of the pie. They must be fantastic at moving money into the right people's/organizations pockets.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As important as the Anti-Semitism is in the Labour party I just know this will be used as a distraction by Boris and Co and a way to take attention from how shite a job they are doing.  It really is a gift for the Tories.

 

also whatever Stammer did re Corbyn was a loose loose situation.

[lessthanluke]

It's like both parties want to lose the next election. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

As important as the Anti-Semitism is in the Labour party I just know this will be used as a distraction by Boris and Co and a way to take attention from how shite a job they are doing.  It really is a gift for the Tories.

 

also whatever Stammer did re Corbyn was a loose loose situation.

I disagree.

First there are no upcoming elections on the horizon. Johnson is not facing a revolt to oust him just now. Same story with Starmer sacking Long-Bailey from his shadow cabinet. He once again showed he is not fucking around, when it comes to fighting anti-semitism. The Corbynites can howl all they like, Starmer's aim is to win the next GE, so I don't think there was a better time for cutting that albatross loose. Second The pandemic isn't going away any time soon, so HMG will soon have back their headlines about their (mis-)handling of it.  Third Then there will also be another round of Brexit news. And Corbyn's suspension will be forgotten.

[karaddin]

From the outside this looks a lot more like opportunism exploiting the problem of anti-Semitism to get rid of someone than a genuine attempt at addressing the problem, I certainly would be worried that it was just painting a big target on me if I were Jewish (not much of a stretch - similar scenario comes up plenty with trans issues).

Of course the problem with the view from outside is that you don't see all the details or all the nuance. If this is just part of larger measures that genuinely look to be tackling anti-Semitism in the party then that's good, if it's just kicking Corbyn out then I'll remain cynical.

[Heartofice]

Corbyn didn't help himself with his response to the report. If he'd just sat there and accepted it then maybe he'd still be there.. I don't know. But he had to get a little dig in about it all being hyped up for political reasons. Thats the reason he's gone and is so disliked, he just can't let it go. 

[karaddin]

Again on the view from outside - I haven't heard shit from him, I thought he was essentially in the rear view mirror of the party.

[SeanF]

That seems very astute on the part of Sir Keir Starmer.

[BigFatCoward]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Corbyn didn't help himself with his response to the report. If he'd just sat there and accepted it then maybe he'd still be there.. I don't know. But he had to get a little dig in about it all being hyped up for political reasons. Thats the reason he's gone and is so disliked, he just can't let it go. 

He comes across as a decent man but a horrendous politician. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I don’t agree with the assertions that this was done just as an excuse to get rid of Corbyn, and not because he’s refused to apologise again. If Corbyn believes this was just a political move, he’s overestimating how much he matters at the moment.

[dog-days]

My impression is that the anti-Semitism problem is partly hyped-up, and partly absolutely real.  Fairly sure the stuff that's come from Margaret Beckett has been largely politically motivated, but the the stuff councillors/party members were saying on social media needed looking at. 

One of the reasons I left the party back in spring last year was due to the reports about how incompetently and frankly self-destructively the Labour leadership were handling the complaints. Just gah. There were endless stories (rumours? facts? smears? it was hard to tell) about investigations into complaints being interfered with, and there never seemed to be any clear rebuttals, or signs that Labour understood they needed to be whiter than white in how they dealt with the issue. 

I think Starmer probably had to suspend Corbyn - it was politically necessary, even if it seems extreme on grounds of his long service and opposition to racism.