Coronavirus

[Trainee neophyte]

........no one in the west has a job of any value.........

So nurses, doctors, dentists, charity workers, teachers, university lecturers, scientists, engineers, researchers, vets, farmers........none of these are jobs of any value. Interesting perspective you have there.

The full quote is:

The upside of globalism is that we can buy really cheap stuff. The downside is that no one in the west has a job of any value, which is about to be shown up by the mother of all recessions. Everyone currently working from home should consider their position - if you are capable of working from home, what are you actually doing, and does the world really care? Will the world notice if you didn't work at all? The middle class is about to be ram-raided.

We're taking about the future again - making predictions. By saying that the downside of globalisation is that no one in the west has a job of any value, I was (I had hoped) suggesting that all the value jobs that could be offshored, have been offshored. You then gave a list of jobs reasonably secure from off-shoring. As for the rest of it - if you work from home and no one noticed the difference, do you produce value? Some people almost certainly can say yes (I believe architects provide a valuable and very necessary service, for example), but others not so much. Once again, I have commited the unforgivable internet crime of a "logical fallacy". It's something that I do constantly - but not intentionally, I hope you understand. Paint pictures in black and white, and someone will always point out that blue could be another option.

So back to you - are you confident that middle-class life, with its wealth and security, and constant house-price inflation, and index linked pensions etc will continue unaffected by the global economic shutdown? A six week hiatus, and everyone back to normal, as if nothing had happened?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Andy Kev wrote:

IMO the short term dealing with the virus should be resolutely apolitical and it demands pulling together as a nation.

I disagree for one simple reason: the government are lying.

we can only be apolitical all the time the government are being honest, as they aren't, they must be held to account. Lets remember this government got into to power and have been in the process of a right wing coup -we live in politically dangerous times.

this government is putting politics above dealing with this virus -if they arent being apolitical, you cant expect the electorate to be either.

I can assure you that the UK government isn't lying. Only evil communist dictatorship governments lie. It is very clear.

 

[MikeG.]

I hate to be a party pooper, but syphillis is a bacteria, not a virus (let alone a corona virus).

 

[MikeG.]

........So back to you - are you confident that middle-class life, with its wealth and security, and constant house-price inflation, and index linked pensions etc will continue unaffected by the global economic shutdown? A six week hiatus, and everyone back to normal, as if nothing had happened?

I'm silent on the matter. I have no thoughts on those issues at the moment, other than a wish that my wife recovers and my kids stay well. This isn't about me. It was your claim that all UK jobs were worthless (in terms), and I note that you haven't withdrawn that, nor yet justified it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I hate to be a party pooper, but syphillis is a bacteria, not a virus (let alone a corona virus).

:lol: Does the Donald know that?

 

[sploo]

Saying it is underfunded is a straw man argument, it is always underfunded and always will be, voting in a new party won't change that.

Not really a straw man; it's based on data (the lack of resources vs patient numbers). So, yes, we could always claim that until 100% of "everything" can be treated then it's underfunded, but there are some sensible lines; tens of thousands of extra ventilators sitting around "just in case" isn't realistic, having enough basic paper masks and plastic overalls is.

As for a new party; we've had a party in power for a decade that is - in essence - opposed to state funded services, such as socialised healthcare. I'm not making a judgement on that (or saying that it's universally bad and the opposite is universally good), and I don't have a problem with different parties having different economic views (healthy democracy and all that). My problem is that the NHS is a popular thing in British public opinion, so despite being essentially opposed to its existence (and funding it as such), economically right wing parties will still claim to be big supporters.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

........So back to you - are you confident that middle-class life, with its wealth and security, and constant house-price inflation, and index linked pensions etc will continue unaffected by the global economic shutdown? A six week hiatus, and everyone back to normal, as if nothing had happened?

I'm silent on the matter. I have no thoughts on those issues at the moment, other than a wish that my wife recovers and my kids stay well. This isn't about me. It was your claim that all UK jobs were worthless (in terms), and I note that you haven't withdrawn that, nor yet justified it.

If you offshore the manufacturing jobs, you are left with...services? Banking? Last time I was in the UK, about 5 years ago, I couldn't get over how many people were driving around, all the time! Where were the going, what were they doing, and didn't they have any work to do? I still don't have the answer to that one.

Would you like me to go through your list?

Nurses, doctors, dentists - people do like their healthcare. Surprisingly to some, I would give them a tick, too. It's a yes!


Charity workers, teachers, university lecturers. Ahh, now we are getting into trouble...some yes, but some (most?) an emphatic no.

Scientists, engineers, researchers - yes, but quite a few of these have been offshored to China and the Orient. Isn't that the point?

Vets, farmers....farmers grow food, and without food people die, so we can tick that one as useful.

Government statistics:
overall in 2017, 29.7% of workers in the UK were employed in the public administration, education and health sector (the highest percentage out of all sectors); 18.7% were employed in distribution, hotels and restaurants, 17.3% in banking, finance and insurance, 9.3% in manufacturing, 9.0% in transport and communications, 7.4% in construction, 5.9% in other services, 1.7% in energy and water, and 1.1% in agriculture and fishing

The conversation was about off-shoring - do you have any thoughts on that?

 

[sploo]

I hate to be a party pooper, but syphillis is a bacteria, not a virus (let alone a corona virus).

:lol: Does the Donald know that?

No, but he knows there are 38m people in Seoul :mrgreen:

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1 ... 1470417920

 

[MikeG.]

.......If you offshore the manufacturing jobs, you are left with...services? Banking? Last time I was in the UK, about 5 years ago, I couldn't get over how many people were driving around, all the time! Where were the going, what were they doing, and didn't they have any work to do? I still don't have the answer to that one.

Would you like me to go through your list?

Nurses, doctors, dentists - people do like their healthcare. Surprisingly to some, I would give them a tick, too. It's a yes!


Charity workers, teachers, university lecturers. Ahh, now we are getting into trouble...some yes, but some (most?) an emphatic no.

Scientists, engineers, researchers - yes, but quite a few of these have been offshored to China and the Orient. Isn't that the point?

Vets, farmers....farmers grow food, and without food people die, so we can tick that one as useful.

Government statistics:
overall in 2017, 29.7% of workers in the UK were employed in the public administration, education and health sector (the highest percentage out of all sectors); 18.7% were employed in distribution, hotels and restaurants, 17.3% in banking, finance and insurance, 9.3% in manufacturing, 9.0% in transport and communications, 7.4% in construction, 5.9% in other services, 1.7% in energy and water, and 1.1% in agriculture and fishing

You won't come out and say it......but as you are now saying that some jobs are useful, you are tacitly agreeing that not "all jobs" are worthless.

The conversation was about off-shoring - do you have any thoughts on that?

That's your conversation, not mine. I'm not interested in it right now. I was only interested in the bizarre claim that all jobs in the west were useless.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Saying it is underfunded is a straw man argument, it is always underfunded and always will be, voting in a new party won't change that.

Not really a straw man; it's based on data (the lack of resources vs patient numbers). So, yes, we could always claim that until 100% of "everything" can be treated then it's underfunded, but there are some sensible lines; tens of thousands of extra ventilators sitting around "just in case" isn't realistic, having enough basic paper masks and plastic overalls is.

As for a new party; we've had a party in power for a decade that is - in essence - opposed to state funded services, such as socialised healthcare. I'm not making a judgement on that (or saying that it's universally bad and the opposite is universally good), and I don't have a problem with different parties having different economic views (healthy democracy and all that). My problem is that the NHS is a popular thing in British public opinion, so despite being essentially opposed to its existence (and funding it as such), economically right wing parties will still claim to be big supporters.

The Tories dare not be opposed to the NHS, so they de facto accept it. We don't actually know the extent to which they believe in it or not - unless perhaps we are guardianasta telepaths. They certainly do not appear to be having an internal debate about doing away with it or replacing it as far as one can tell.

As someone who is beholden to no political party, I would suggest that there are other systems which cost about the same, where treatment is also free at the point of delivery but where the "patient experience" (excuse the horrible business jargon) is better e.g. the German system. A logical course of action would be to do a simple study comparing the UK system with those in place in comparable countries, then apply logic and choose the best, subject to approval by referendum so as to keep it above board.

Incidentally on the subject of resources. I think that this crisis made clear that we are not currently in a position to cope with the inevitable outbreak of a really contagious but much more deadly disease in the future. It will come one day but nobody knows when. It is inevitable given that it is unlikely that politicians will want to reverse globalisation.

How about building isolation hospitals and then leaving them standing empty? There would be a one off capital cost and relatively low maintenance costs but they would put us in with a shout of nipping the spread of a future disease in the bud. They could be located throughout the country near existing hospitals for logistical reasons but would otherwise just be a reserve for serious emergencies. We would thus end up with a low cost strategic reserve in the system. Stores for emergency medical supplies could also be built next to them.

 

[Rorschach]

Not really a straw man; it's based on data (the lack of resources vs patient numbers). So, yes, we could always claim that until 100% of "everything" can be treated then it's underfunded, but there are some sensible lines; tens of thousands of extra ventilators sitting around "just in case" isn't realistic, having enough basic paper masks and plastic overalls is.

Sorry I meant in general. There are certainly areas where there is a specific problem, the PPE issue seems to be one of them though that may not be an under funding issue as much as a poor planning issue.
What I meant was every time we have an election, every party pledges more money to the NHS and everyone cheers, but at what point would anyone say "that's enough"? Never, people always want more, we will never have enough, but there has to be a point at which the money stops.

 

[MikeG.]

........How about building isolation hospitals and then leaving them standing empty?.......

The one thing we really have learnt from this outbreak is that we can build an enormous amount of capacity very quickly. I'm not sure there is much to be gained from having empty buildings standing around potentially for 100 years when we can gain similar capacity in 2 weeks just by renting existing buildings. I suspect the bigger lesson is to invest in stocks of consumables.

 

[Andy Kev.]

........How about building isolation hospitals and then leaving them standing empty?.......

The one thing we really have learnt from this outbreak is that we can build an enormous amount of capacity very quickly. I'm not sure there is much to be gained from having empty buildings standing around potentially for 100 years when we can gain similar capacity in 2 weeks just by renting existing buildings. I suspect the bigger lesson is to invest in stocks of consumables.

That aspect of it hadn't occurred to me. Maybe military style tented hospitals (they are very sophisticated and state of the art as opposed to being just tents) could be stored in logistically optimal locations so they could be put up very rapidly. The only problem with taking up empty buildings is that they have to be empty in the first place. That might not always be the case. I agree with you about consumables, hence my suggestion about stores.

 

[Rorschach]

I suspect the bigger lesson is to invest in stocks of consumables.

Definitely. A short term supply only though to avoid waste when it inevitably has to be replaced every X years. I remember how much first aid kit we used to destroy because it was out of date, we were only a small business but the stock we were required to keep was frankly rather silly and 90% of it went in the bin.
As you rightly say in a time of crisis we can do a lot quickly, all we need is a supply to cover us for a week or two while things gear up.

 

[sploo]

The Tories dare not be opposed to the NHS, so they de facto accept it. We don't actually know the extent to which they believe in it or not - unless perhaps we are guardianasta telepaths. They certainly do not appear to be having an internal debate about doing away with it or replacing it as far as one can tell.

I don't think they have any internal debate re underfunding it and selling it off...

As someone who is beholden to no political party, I would suggest that there are other systems which cost about the same, where treatment is also free at the point of delivery but where the "patient experience" (excuse the horrible business jargon) is better e.g. the German system. A logical course of action would be to do a simple study comparing the UK system with those in place in comparable countries, then apply logic and choose the best, subject to approval by referendum so as to keep it above board.

A fair point - though an (if I recall correctly) American study a few years back rated the NHS very highly (vs a large sample of other nation's systems). The main UK problems were poor general health of the population; rather than issues with the care system.

Sorry I meant in general. There are certainly areas where there is a specific problem, the PPE issue seems to be one of them though that may not be an under funding issue as much as a poor planning issue.

That's a fair point - planning rather than money is more likely an issue there.

What I meant was every time we have an election, every party pledges more money to the NHS and everyone cheers, but at what point would anyone say "that's enough"? Never, people always want more, we will never have enough, but there has to be a point at which the money stops.

I guess that depends if it's real money, or instead going round hospitals for photo shoots whilst "pledging" the budgets they were already going to get... to use but one (recent) example...

 

[Chris152]

Here's the web address I asked about yesterday, 'raising £1,000,000 to Help feed NHS workers one hot healthy meal each day. Starting in the hardest hit London hospitals, then going National'.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/FeedNHS

And this seems to be one setup specifically for Cardiff - maybe there are others set for local hospitals through the country?
https://www.gofundme.com/f/feeding-nhs- ... h-hospital

 

[RobinBHM]

Andy Kev wrote:

The Tories dare not be opposed to the NHS, so they de facto accept it

The Tories have a vested interest in dismantling the NHS.
Why? .....because they are paid to do it.

What they do is run down the NHS services, then get private tenders for it. They can claim its still the NHS as the private operator gets paid by the government. Unfortunately private healthcare is driven by shareholder profits not patient care.

Matt Hancock: "£32,000 from Neil Record, who just so happens to be the Chairman of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA)."

Dominic Raab "co-authored a pamphlet that advocated increased privatisation of the NHS,"

Jeremy Hunt "Received £32,920 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms"

Liam Fox: "Received £5,000 from investment company IPGL Ltd, who purchased healthcare pharma company Cyprotex

Sajid Javid "Received £11,000 from Moundsley Healthcare Ltd last year."

Penny Mordaunt "worked for lobbying firm Hanover, where she had a range of healthcare clients."

Priti Patel "Worked for lobbying firm Weber Shandwick, which does PR for big healthcare and pharmaceutical firms"

John Redwood "Advised the private equity company which runs Pharmacy2u, the UK’s largest dedicated internet and mail order pharmacy."

Amber Rudd "Received £3,000 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms."

Matthew Elliott "is the founder of the Taxpayers Alliance – which has long argued for the break-up of the NHS and private competition in healthcare."

 

[Blackswanwood]

Isn't this straying into politics?

 

[RobinBHM]

Andy Kev wrote:

cost about the same, where treatment is also free at the point of delivery but where the "patient experience" (excuse the horrible business jargon) is better e.g. the German system

I believe the German healthcare system is much better funded and it costs more.

Its a mixed system of state, profit, not for profit. My limited knowledge says its pretty good.

The worst thing the UK could have is the US insurance based system.

 

[MikeG.]

........The Tories.........

The Rules.

(6a.) Politics.
Over the years there has been one subject that has caused heated debates on the forums and that is politics. For that reason political discussion, in particular party political comments in a thread are not regarded as acceptable.....

Please don't spoil it for everyone.