Okay, this veers very closely to tinfoil-hat-territory but, sadly, it's not unbelievable:
https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/1046828583484821504
Printable View
Okay, this veers very closely to tinfoil-hat-territory but, sadly, it's not unbelievable:
https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/1046828583484821504
Closely? That's well into tin foil hat territory.
178 days of this nonsense left.
No checkmark. Doesn't appear to work for anyone in particular. Angrily refuses to cite his sources, despite his claims they are public domain. Checks out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Indeed. Let's not assume competence where there's none :pQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Fits with the usual pattern of conspiracy BS, requiring implausible levels of competence and cooperation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Though, truth to be told, if we go by the benchmark of requiring competence, nearly anything will be implausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unheard Of
Unilever has determined that London is too important to leave: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/1...lder-pressure/
For the company it isn't a good decision. The present structure makes it excessively vulnerable. Continuing as is may very well turn out not to be an option. But what gives, these people own the British side and decide on what happens to it.
Tusk now suggesting 'by the end of the year'. IE December is plausible as is potentially after the end of the year. All talk of October/November deadlines gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45768848
Those deadlines were based on the need for ratification. Nothing has changed about that. Thinking that this is a regular negotiation within the EU which could be finalized in the 11th hour is the most dangerous misconception on the British side.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Of course as I said 2 months ago. November or December or early January makes very little difference to ratification as stuff shuts down over Christmas anyway.
And I will repeat; parliaments don’t like to be told to hurry up.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which again doesn't change anything.
It changes everything if your negotiators aren't aware of the simple fact that this time it's not a Council decision to be hammered out in the small hours of the night.
If they thought that they'd be looking for a deal in March next year not by the end of this year.
Your press called it a humiliation when your PM was confronted with a EU ultimatum to come with a workable proposal in october.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Great idea. Meetings like that work well in the private and charitable sectors including health related charities so I think that makes sense for the NHS where appropriate too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No that's not what was called a humiliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Erm, you obviously overlooked that this is recommended as the default and as a cost-saving measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Privacy and effectiveness are a clear secondary goal here.
Also, just what I want: A 10 minutes consultation turning into a 90 minutes lovefest where I get 2 minutes with the doctor. Plus, suffering from the same conditions? And then naming rheuma? One type of illness which has a very diverse set of conditions, namely about 200 to 400?
It doesn't say it will be the default for all meetings. It says it should be the default for "some" conditions since a successful trial.
And why highlight cost-saving? That's a good thing not a bad thing!
Whenever someone puts "save money" first then you can be pretty sure that whatever happens to the patient is a secondary concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I see Brexit Britain cracked that pesky doctor - patient confidentiality problem.
The budget is limited. Saving money is good for patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
This is very obviously a response to an untenable (and, to a great extent, avoidable) shortage of resources in primary care, which is partly a consequence of political decisions. It isn't a consequence of Brexit per se--austerity and Hunt's notorious mismanagement predate Brexit by many years--but there's a possibility that the problems will be exacerbated by Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
There are some situations in which it's useful for everyone to meet patients in groups, eg. for patient education, physical activity and the like. We have patients with Parkinson's disease, for example, who greatly appreciate the course we hold a couple of times each semester for our patients. It's an opportunity to learn more from both medical professionals as well as from other patients, to get to know others and to become activated in a fun and social way. But this is a complement to their usual care. The method described in the article is almost certainly going to resemble the implementations some struggling primary care clinics here have trialed in response to a high workload and a shortage of staff, where group sessions are used as a substitute for an individualized approach.
I was able to observe this strategy up close during a six month primary care rotation where group sessions were the standard of care for most patients with various psychiatric issues, chronic pain etc. and I remain extremely skeptical. I found that many patients simply never got the help they needed and were entitled to, because they were discouraged (understandably) by the prospect of having to either wait a very long time for individualized treatment, or be forced to undergo therapy and similar activities in groups. Many of the staff who were involved in the group sessions were very positive, but had not considered the obvious selection effects. Many of the patients who enrolled in these programmes either dropped out or completed it but were disappointed because the one-size-fits-all philosophy inherent to most such interventions precluded effective individualized help.
Anecdotally, the presence of a third party can often make it difficult for patients to speak frankly about their problems, concerns, questions etc. If a partner or family member is present I can at least get useful information (although even then it's better to speak one-on-one with the patient), but the presence of other patients who are either strangers--or friends/acquaintances/neighbours/colleagues--tends to obstruct rather than facilitate consultations. Reducing time with a physician is a disadvantage rather than an advantage--many patients have multiple concerns, several of which can be addressed but that will never come to light if they always have very limited time with their doctor or nurse. It also makes it more likely for a physician to misdiagnose a patient with eg. a treatable psychiatric condition. I don't mind change, and I think group sessions can in theory be useful, but I'm convinced those who are enthusiastic about these strategies are deluding themselves out of desperation.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I see that after leaving the EU Randy has a new target; abolishing the NHS.
Time for May to walk away and say no deal: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-says-barnier
This is a flagrant violation of the Good Friday Agreement principle of consent and utterly unacceptable.
No deal again? Seems you have missed that the EU has let it know that in case of no deal there will be no accommodation for the effects of the crashing out of the EU. In other words; those planes will really be grounded.
It's no longer theory Randy, it has become policy; either you sign on the dotted line or you can go fuck yourselves. Now show how tough you are.
I'd rather go fuck ourselves than make a part of our country a colony that has no say in its own laws.