Forum Topic

Martine. I wouldn't disagree that long term we should be looking at a National Care Service to complement or, ideally, to be integrated with the NHS. However, that's a longer term fix. In the short term, as Jane says, there's no queue of people waiting to join care organisations. It's partly pay is too low and partly there aren't enough people looking for jobs. That's true from the high tech sector as well as hospitality, care services, NHS, etc. Of course, at the high tech end it can be solved by remote working where one can employ someone anywhere in the world for software development and systems support. However, care, health and hospitality are hands on activities and need people on site to deliver. Interestingly, I sat in on an IT recruitment session where those running data centre were complaining about the dearth of people applying for their jobs. They need people on site to plug in cables, and check, install and replace equipment but no young people are attracted to it even though salaries are probably reasonable; that's in part because many youngsters apparently don't realise that behind Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google, Amazon, etc there are huge warehouses of servers and discs underpinning all those services! (And if they do, it's not as attractive as, say, developing computer games ...)I'm sure robotics and AI will solve the data centre problems - and I believe Japan is investing in robots for care services? So perhaps there's a high-tech solution for care?

Michael Ixer ● 978d

Thanks, Paul. Only had time to skim but an interesting perspective. I note the release of vaccine data by the FDA is to do with the speed of release of information (presumably because of the need to spend time redacting trade secrets) of 500 pages per month not a block on release for c50 years. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pfizer-pushes-intervene-lawsuit-seeking-covid-vaccine-information-fda-2022-01-26/ Perhaps that's a ploy by the FDA to get more budget and resource; "we can't read it, redact it and release any faster with our current resources"? I don't disagree that pharmaceutical companies need to be monitored and challenged - the Sackler scandal proves that. (Not necessarily anything wrong with opioids per se, more the unnecessary over prescription based on disinformation?) I'm still not convinced that there's any statistics to prove the risks presented by Covid vaccines aren't outweighed by their benefits; in my reading this paper is that it presents the need for challenges and regulation of pharmaceutical organisations as they may be driven by their own self interest rather than presention of any statistics that there are significant fatal side effects from the vaccines - but, as I say, I've only skimmed it. The Pfizer indemnity refusal by India is interesting but one could put several interpretations on that; it could just be a question of who takes the commercial risk of side effects arising? Of course a fundamental issue of capitalism is that without significant regulation large organisations can become a law unto themselves? That applies as much to water companies polluting rivers and beaches as to drug companies pushing their wares. An issue with charitable foundations, such as the Gates one, is that it's the trustees determining what is targeted not a democratic body. (Not that I necessarily disagree with a lot the Gates Foundation does.) There may be an inclination to go for big business solutions rather than local smaller scale but possibly more viable ones in, for example, countries with less developed infrastructure. That makes the case for higher taxation so the spend is determined by a democratically elected government not self appointed trustees of a charitable foundation? Getting back to medicine - an obvious problem is the one size to fit all with vaccines (or medicines). Testing ensures they cater for the vast majority of the general population but it's difficult to find the outliers who might suffer severe adverse reactions. Let's hope that's where big data analysis applied to pharmaceuticals may help, allowing medicines to be tailored to individuals' genetics/epigenetics - or perhaps even identify those who might have an adverse reaction to particular vaccines before they're administered

Michael Ixer ● 979d

Mr Lambert. I somehow don't think you've read the posts very well. I could be wrong but I doubt if Mr W and I are that close on political views, or maybe he did vote for Mr Corbyn in the 2019 election. Only he knows that. I think where do agree is probably around the methods of scientific research?With regards to lockdowns I wasn't that in favour of them, I was going to IT and Marketing Expos right up until the last week, and to the opera the last night before the lockdown. The reason I supported the lockdown was in the week prior to it being announced I read Neil Ferguson's report and realised the potential seriousness of the situation.Sounds like Johnson - or one of his aides - did the same; I guess they then realised it they didn't do something drastic, irrespective of the numbers who might die, the NHS was likely to collapse because of underinvestment by their government and their lack of pandemic planning. (My views are coloured to some extent in that my father's parents - my paternal grandparents who I never had the opportunity to meet - died in the 1918 flu pandemic.)Now, one can argue about the accuracy of the Ferguson report - hindsight's very useful - but it was based on statistics and knowledge plus the mathematical models available at that time. That's sort of how science works, we know how better knowledge of Covid, although there's still a lot of research in progress. Perhaps if there had been better pandemic planning - including more investment in models - actions could have been less drastic, although given lockdowns were more or less worldwide I'd be sceptical about that. (To declare an interest here, I did study mathematics at Imperial College where Neil Ferguson is based but that was a long time ago so I don't know him and have no personal reason to support him other than under the circumstances his report seemed reasonable.)To be honest, I've no reason to support actions by this government but I think in this instance they have limited options. It's a mistake to view this as a one dimensional problem; there's multiple aspects to it. (And I think Paul might agree with that?) However, Paul's information has come from video sources which aren't always convenient for me to watch; I've just asked to see links to the peer reviewed research material this videos are based on. That seems a reasonable request to anyone with a scientific background or technology background.

Michael Ixer ● 980d