It would appear that you are more articulate than PHE, well done Jaimie :)
"The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple." - Einstein
@truthfinder - I'm simply pointing out that quangos in the 3rd sector like PHE carry out pointless studies all the time to "justify" their existence and continue receiving state funds.
Soren kierkegaard | Locum GP17 Jun 2020 3:26pm
If the omission is from the hospital in not appropriately acting on a referral, then they are medico-legally liable.
- That may be true, but who ends up paying the bills the vast majority of the time? We do, through defence union indemnities, GMC subs, if legal aid is involved, then taxpayers. The lawyers all get paid whether a case is won or lost... AND you can't countersue for costs in a successful defence. Its a rotten system.
carfentanyl | GP Partner/Principal17 Jun 2020 5:01pm
- Even if any CQC bots read your comment, I don't think they get sarcasm... :)
Spot on with anonymouse3, Paul, Janine and others. Exercise your own common sense, knowledge, and what existing liberties we have left
Truth finder | GP Partner/Principal16 Jun 2020 1:07pm
Why do a test or study if one is to ignore the results?
- You still get paid for doing it, aren't you? Good use of taxpayer funds?
Anne Read | Hospital Doctor13 Jun 2020 4:21pm
So much deep sadness for the NHS.
- There's no need to be sad for a bad idea that was never going to be sustainable long term.
I'm curious @Curious :)
Do you dismiss CNN as much as you dismiss Fox, as reliable sources of information? Fox News is the highest rated news outlet in the USA:
It seems Fox News reflects the biggest majority of the public's views, and you're dismissing Fox as a reliable source of information?
No problem, maybe I misunderstood:
" for example when the rich are privileged over the poor" - That suggests a zero sum game. That the rich take more of a limited pie over others.
"if we believe in the rights of the individual above all else, then in time massive inequalities will open up which will leave those from poor backgrounds, with no opportunity to develop" - That suggests that private enterprise itself will not provide the opportunities for the 'poor' to develop.
"socialist humanism seeks equality between all humans" - That suggests that there actually isn't inequality in socialism, there is, even more so actually.
" the point of capitalism is to make the pie bigger" - No, that is a byproduct but not at all times. The point of capitalism is that by setting up as free a system of as many voluntary transactions as possible, people make decisions as sensibly as they can for themselves. As you've pointed out, not all capitalist economies grow all the time. And there could be multiple factors for that, as well as the other issues you mentioned, wage stagnation, e.g. mass open-door immigration, high taxation. You use the evidence of us from the 1980s? Well, you do know our state is growing, regulation was ever increasing as part of the EU, spenditure is increasing year on year, and incentivising being on welfare has created a portion of the population (now majority) that are non-taxpayers/net-takers.
"Some resources are depleted.... some resources such as solar have yet to reach their full potential" - Of course if you break it down, specific resource elements vary all the time. Yet the TOTAL aggregate resources available to us are greater than ever before, due to technological advancement.
Again, I repeat, capitalism is not perfect, but the only way to guard against corrupt practices, the only way to "check" capitalism or anything else for that matter, is transparency. Let the people/the market decide which corporation is corrupt.
I get that you have criticism of both sides. The roots of these ideas are also a matter of interest but don't really matter so much if we are looking at what "works". And I assert from the evidence of history, rather than ideology. I'm also not an anarchist, i.e, I'm centre-right, for limited govt. But again, some things are clear cut - i.e, by all means, call on the black GP population to come forward and represent themselves, and that's almost assuming that they are homogenous and all think alike, but to have preferential treatment of 1 ethnic group over another? Is that the definition of racism?
Oh I certainly agree with what you said about the virtue signalling going on at present. Fear IS a powerful motivator. However, nobody has established Chauvin's motives as yet, so it might not be even a race thing at all. But clearly, that hasn't stopped the Left from using the racial identity politics of it.
If anything, assuming that it is a race thing, simply because Chauvin is white, and that George Floyd is black, with no other underlying motives, is almost pre-judging Chauvin, because of his skin colour.... Is that the definition of racism?
Sigh, it's a sign of the state of public education that I, not an economist/politician, have to explain economics/politics 101.
Socialism enforced via the STATE has NEVER worked, WILL NEVER work, CAN'T EVER work... Fundamental truths:
1. It is always easier to spend someone else's money.
2. Power corrupts
3. Compulsion only discourages innate noble intentions.
4. The bigger the state, the smaller the economy.
You might think threading the middle ground, like we supposedly do, may work, but it always leads to debt, excess and irresponsible spending, power grabbing and overreach by the state, silencing/censoring of dissenting views... (look at me being called fascist for example, after I promoted some black intellectuals, and selection of representation by individual merit, rather than colour!)
Nobody has said capitalism is perfect... but it is the best system we know of to uplift as many as possible. Equality of opportunity is perfectly sensible economically, but humans, who are born unequal, will never be equal in all things, and worse, in trying to enforce equality of outcome, you would need an overregulating authoritarian state of course.
Curious, you've made multiple false assumptions:
1. That the economy is a zero-sum game, that 1 man's gain is another man's loss.
2. That private enterprise is totally selfish, and has no altruistic or humanist nature.
3. That in the socialist utopia, there's no inequality/corruption/resource exploitation, etc
4. That capitalism needs continuous growth to maintain itself, it doesn't.
5. That resources are dwindling, they aren't. Technology/science, as driven by capitalism, opens up new avenues of resource management, all the time.
The rest of what you said about equality of opportunity and outcome, I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, it has been proven:
The greater the liberty and freedom, the greater the biological/psychological differences manifest.
Conclusion: the Left/Right divide is as dramatic as I think, and even more so. Fundamentally, the Left seeks to gain power, through the false premise of taking away the individual responsibility for our well-being, and in so doing, taking our liberties and freedoms that past generations have sacrificed to hand down to us, and destroying the very system that have made us so successful in the first place. It is also using identity politics and collectivism as a means of doing so, and has no idea, or maybe perfect idea of how dangerous and pernicious that is. The state of global and national affairs demonstrate precisely this.
You've made a similar assumption that only people from a certain subgroup can represent issues that that subgroup faces. I never disagreed that black representation matters, I simply pointed out that you don't then select representation by race but by content. There's a reason Trump is gaining black voter popularity, for example.
I see you dropping lots of bywords like gaslighting and fascism. I haven't tried to censor anyone have I? I'm simply debating and putting out counterarguments, which appears to simply go over the heads of the name-callers. Just 2 paragraphs for now, since it appears anything more is too much for you.
Do you mean in the UK? And still living?
Kevin Fenton, currently a director at PHE
David Dabydeen, Professorial Fellow in the Office of the Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Warwick.
Internationally, I could name a fair few more:
Thomas Sowell - of which his book "Race and Economics" is a great read.
Colin Powell - retired 4star general, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor, etc.
William M. Banks, currently Professor Emeritus at the University of California Berkeley.
Kwame Appiah, professor of philosophy and law at New York University.
Stephen Carter, currently the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law.
Most, if not all listed, have written books and publications that are easily sourced. If you look specifically for intellectual role models from a specific group, you would find them. The seeming lack of exposure or public awareness is a more a reflection of academia than anything else.
"1. I'm not asking the 'taxpayer' (in the form of the Treasury) to do anything, or even advocating a form of 'social engineering'."
- The fact that you and others are devoting time, and hence money, to even thinking about this IS a form of social engineering, and comes at a 'cost', maybe not just monetary cost, to the state. E.g, The GMC is partially state funded, and entirely state regulated. Regulation of the GMC itself, whether through reviews/courts, costs the taxpayer doesn't it?
2. As Morgan Freeman has said, you want to stop racism, stop talking about colour. Surely, ANY voice, who could PROVE/have EVIDENCE into the differential pass rates that could be attributed to 'racism', you would want to promote. It could be a voice coming from a white person, would you not promote that? And if it were a black person who found a conclusion you don't like, would you be promoting them? Your assumption being that only black people can represent black issues...
I have no issues with promoting any voice, my point is you don't choose voice by COLOUR. Let me put it even more simpler - in this respect, I'm colourblind... The content of what you say, and the nature of your character... is all that matters to me.
3. You then ceded that it is a 'problem' deeper than simply 'representation'. So would having equal representation in a subgroup actually solve anything? Why bother if you don't have any evidence that it does? You still haven't answered my first point, as described by Thomas Sowell.
4. I think you're going to have trouble proving 'holding back' Patrufinito. Or that the outcome/scapegoating in Dr Bawa-Garba's case wouldn't have happened if she was a different race. And as the courts have shown, that the differential pass rates are down to NOTHING ELSE but race...
What you've done already Jaimie, has maybe solved your own problem of lack of black representation in Power 50. You've essentially put out a call for nominations, excluded anyone who's been on it before, and have stated publicly that you would promote black voices ahead of others. If nominations were divided into 50% other races:50% black, would that be reflected in the final results? Or would 'Affirmative Action' apply here? Or would they simply be selected by merit?
A Thomas Sowell quote/paraphrase: There is no evidence that an equal representation of gender/ethnicity in a subgroup as compared to the general population makes it any more 'effective'. E.g, Does having a 50:50 M:F ratio in the armed forces make it any more combat effective at the frontlines? All evidence points to the contrary. In Scandinavia, where societies are most egalitarian, the preferential differences are maximised, not minimised.
Please prove that the energy/social engineering it would take to equalise by ethnicity is worth the investment by the taxpayer. I don't see you wanting to equalise by gender, in case you didn't know M:F ratio in GP land is 4:5...
And is anyone anywhere seeing white GPs "holding back" any BAME GPs? Or female GPs "holding back " any male GPs? Now you want to preferentially promote some voices ahead of others, simply because of race? Hmmm.... Dangerous ground there, don't you think? Why not promote individual voices, if what they say is worth hearing, regardless of race?
P.S I'm BAME, I'll wait to hear you pushing my voice ahead of any white GP then...
USA: Tested 6.4% of population, case rate of 9.5% tested are +ve, death rate of 5.5% of confirmed cases with same assumption. Mortality rate of tested population - 0.5%.
New Zealand is another interesting example:
Tested 5% of pop, case rate of 0.5% tested were +ve, death rate of 1.4% of confirmed cases. mortality rate of 0.08% of tested population.
One begins to see, there's more to it than just lockdown measures, or even geographical population density...
Let's use Sweden as an interesting example:
Tested 2.7% of population, case rate of 16% tested are +ve, death rate of 10.4% of confirmed cases. mortality rate of 1.6% of tested population. With no lockdown.
less than 1% of confirmed cases, assuming that covid WAS the reason they died.... Mortality rate of tested population - 1.1%
Let's use the high end: Belgium. Tested 8% of population, case rate of approx 6% of tested are +ve, death rate of 16% of confirmed cases, same assumption... mortality rate of tested population - 1%
Now for the UK - tested 8% of population, case rate of 5% of tested are +ve, death rate of 14% of confirmed cases, same assumption... mortality rate of tested population - 0.7% (UK pop 66mil, extrapolated mortality of 500k, with some assumptions).
Anonymouse3 is right though, "No deaths were 'prevented' by lockdown, only delayed". Ivan, covid-19 hasn't "disappeared".
I highlight the UAE: they've tested 25% of their population, case rate of approx 1.5% of tested are +ve, and death rate of
There's no equivalent page of R wing publications on wiki. Well Angus, look at cancel culture...
To anyone on the far left, even the centre looks too far on the right...