If it weren't so serious - because a) this affects public health and b) comes out of the taxpayers' wallets - I'd not stop giggling because this wordy answer is a prime example for civil servants shuffling "a problem" such as your request from one desk to the next and from one dept to the other while desperately trying to hide their ignorance. It's known as deflection, also as covering one's behind.
Now that everybody in Whitehall seems to be back from their skiing holidays, happily WF their warm homes, I'm sure you'll receive more answers - to which i look forward to!
I am going to bet you two geezers would give your eye teeth to see a dept of gov’t efficiency DOGE, headed by Elon and Vivek, do their magic with the UKHSA.💕💕
I hope you two old geezers are managing to keep track in this 3-card Monte game! It's baffling.
The imposingly renamed "Health Security Agency" cannot even define what a threat to our (purported) Health Security even amounts to. See, I've written a _Daily Mail_ headline for the the Mail, free of charge: will they take it up?
Watch out for that almost unavoidable hand-to-face gesture; it'll cripple your game, which is trying to win at 3-card Monte. I admit I am finding it hard to stay focused.
Today I went to a wonderful university public lecture, aimed at showcasing engineering to young people. (My son was a bit young for it, but he still raved about it). One of the speakers was a very charming, engaging chemical engineer. Clearly he's doing very interesting, challenging work: but one of his projects might result in a "more sensitive" COVID test. Which might detect "cases" which were previously "false negatives" under the existing PCR regime.
I silently facepalmed. That's the _very last thing_ we need! But said nothing to my son - we've managed to keep him blissfully unaware of the madness, aided by some luck in the accident of his year of birth, which placed him safely born, but at home or in [sane] nursery rather than at school during the worst of it. Let him find out about it at his own speed as he grows up.
Everything about this event reminded me of how much I love academics and researchers; how honest and infectious their enthusiasm is, how challenging and amenable to honest, ingenious and painstaking inquiry the problems they perceive are. But also, alas, how blind they can be. Later, there was a presentation about robot dogs. I found this terrifying; but not as terrifying as the equanimity of the researcher who seemingly dismissed the obvious problem of "robot dogs carrying machine guns" as something out-of-scope for scientists or technologists.
I find myself reaching for something that perhaps doesn't exist. I'm sure I read about a _scientific community_ revulsion against the Manhattan Project after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Beyond a few cases of 'espionage' in the name of 'global nuke equity', I can't remember whether it really took off beyond Bertrand Russell and a few others. But that's what we really need: advocates for science who truly understand what science - and, of course 'science' - really does in social context. If I reach for names - Paul Feyerabend, David Bohm, Bernard Stiegler (all deceased) - it's out of despair.
At least there's a start here, in what the two old geezers are doing, and it's a very illuminatingly humble one: just ask a few quite basic questions. Having some science kudos will help, both in framing the questions and in attempting to force an answer: but it's really something which, as that public lecture aimed to demonstrate, is open to anyone including schoolchildren. "Why?", the incessant 4-year-old mantra, is not such a bad place to start.
Had a quick look at the annual accounts on Companies House Beta for Seqirus & its various companies . Dividend of £621 million for 2023 bounced around ending up in Australia. Not bad return on jabs that don’t work!
It's either omission or commission. If the former,which I feel more likely, ignorance or incompetence are in play. Incompetence is something the establishment have sought to perfect in recent years and now is almost an art form. With indolence there is some hope.
With Rachels in accounts there's a chance no one will notice but when its Steve in the stores it guaranteed to backfire.
Full marks for perseverence. Years ago I was invited to assist my state's health department with (free) expert advice on a particular issue. Ultimately the wrong decision was made by the department on the basis of - admittedly very skilful - manipulation by company reps I knew well and respected. At least they were good at their job. But for them, the public servants were a pushover. In the vast and complex government bureaucracy aka gravy train, nothing matters so much as networking and polishing one's CV. See also: Parkinson's Law.
Bang on Vivian, we have got a few more “answers” today - see each post update on posts 1,2, and 6.
Best, Tom
If it weren't so serious - because a) this affects public health and b) comes out of the taxpayers' wallets - I'd not stop giggling because this wordy answer is a prime example for civil servants shuffling "a problem" such as your request from one desk to the next and from one dept to the other while desperately trying to hide their ignorance. It's known as deflection, also as covering one's behind.
Now that everybody in Whitehall seems to be back from their skiing holidays, happily WF their warm homes, I'm sure you'll receive more answers - to which i look forward to!
I am going to bet you two geezers would give your eye teeth to see a dept of gov’t efficiency DOGE, headed by Elon and Vivek, do their magic with the UKHSA.💕💕
thanks for your persistence; the UKHSA could be a comedy act; a musical; allo, allo, allo; what's going on 'ere then? ..... endless larfs ...
I hope you two old geezers are managing to keep track in this 3-card Monte game! It's baffling.
The imposingly renamed "Health Security Agency" cannot even define what a threat to our (purported) Health Security even amounts to. See, I've written a _Daily Mail_ headline for the the Mail, free of charge: will they take it up?
Watch out for that almost unavoidable hand-to-face gesture; it'll cripple your game, which is trying to win at 3-card Monte. I admit I am finding it hard to stay focused.
Today I went to a wonderful university public lecture, aimed at showcasing engineering to young people. (My son was a bit young for it, but he still raved about it). One of the speakers was a very charming, engaging chemical engineer. Clearly he's doing very interesting, challenging work: but one of his projects might result in a "more sensitive" COVID test. Which might detect "cases" which were previously "false negatives" under the existing PCR regime.
I silently facepalmed. That's the _very last thing_ we need! But said nothing to my son - we've managed to keep him blissfully unaware of the madness, aided by some luck in the accident of his year of birth, which placed him safely born, but at home or in [sane] nursery rather than at school during the worst of it. Let him find out about it at his own speed as he grows up.
Everything about this event reminded me of how much I love academics and researchers; how honest and infectious their enthusiasm is, how challenging and amenable to honest, ingenious and painstaking inquiry the problems they perceive are. But also, alas, how blind they can be. Later, there was a presentation about robot dogs. I found this terrifying; but not as terrifying as the equanimity of the researcher who seemingly dismissed the obvious problem of "robot dogs carrying machine guns" as something out-of-scope for scientists or technologists.
I find myself reaching for something that perhaps doesn't exist. I'm sure I read about a _scientific community_ revulsion against the Manhattan Project after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Beyond a few cases of 'espionage' in the name of 'global nuke equity', I can't remember whether it really took off beyond Bertrand Russell and a few others. But that's what we really need: advocates for science who truly understand what science - and, of course 'science' - really does in social context. If I reach for names - Paul Feyerabend, David Bohm, Bernard Stiegler (all deceased) - it's out of despair.
At least there's a start here, in what the two old geezers are doing, and it's a very illuminatingly humble one: just ask a few quite basic questions. Having some science kudos will help, both in framing the questions and in attempting to force an answer: but it's really something which, as that public lecture aimed to demonstrate, is open to anyone including schoolchildren. "Why?", the incessant 4-year-old mantra, is not such a bad place to start.
It’s real life W1A isn’t it?
Had a quick look at the annual accounts on Companies House Beta for Seqirus & its various companies . Dividend of £621 million for 2023 bounced around ending up in Australia. Not bad return on jabs that don’t work!
Way to go Tom…..
It's either omission or commission. If the former,which I feel more likely, ignorance or incompetence are in play. Incompetence is something the establishment have sought to perfect in recent years and now is almost an art form. With indolence there is some hope.
With Rachels in accounts there's a chance no one will notice but when its Steve in the stores it guaranteed to backfire.
It was customer complains, and boy am I complaining!
Full marks for perseverence. Years ago I was invited to assist my state's health department with (free) expert advice on a particular issue. Ultimately the wrong decision was made by the department on the basis of - admittedly very skilful - manipulation by company reps I knew well and respected. At least they were good at their job. But for them, the public servants were a pushover. In the vast and complex government bureaucracy aka gravy train, nothing matters so much as networking and polishing one's CV. See also: Parkinson's Law.
It is quite obvious that they don't know and haven't even considered the basics!