Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Michael W]

1 hour ago, peasy23 said:

Looks like Hancock could be the first casualty among government figures. Fully expect the scientists to be flung under the bus quite soon too.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-despair-incompetent-matt-22226375.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Hancock's coat has been on a shaky peg for sometime. An enemy of Cummings as well. 

He is probably the most dispensable senior person involved in this, even if sacking your health secretary looks a bad thing to do at this time, all things considered. Putting aside any views of his performances (which have not impressed me) , I've always thought he's a total lightweight. 

I've long felt that Health Secretary was a thankless job, and that all the government wants from you is to piss off as few people in the NHS as you can. That being the case, the government hasn't really taken it seriously as they would of other positions and filled it with someone that "needs a role" for no reason other than they are a senior politician. When things go wrong, you have someone who quite clearly struggles and looks uncomfortable; not very reassuring. I don't think he should carry the can for Johnson's failings, but the disappearing act he partakes is designed to deflect blame away from where it should be placed, and I imagine it'll work. 

As for the scientists... the transcripts of SAGE meetings a few weeks back made for grim reading and, in hindsight, were horrifying. Bottom line - they delivered bad advice. If your advice is out of kilter with the rest of the world, your arse will be in the firing line if things go badly. Since things have indeed gone very badly, the advice given ought to be looked at those that provided it asked for a thorough explanation of why they shunned the approach taken by most other countries. A lot of people would still have died if we'd taken the approach other countries did, but it's very hard to argue we wouldn't have been in a better position. "We only advise and don't make decisions" isn't going to cut it as a defence anymore than "we were guided by the science" is. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Michael W

[peasy23]

Hancock's coat has been on a shaky peg for sometime. An enemy of Cummings as well. 

He is probably the most dispensable senior person involved in this, even if sacking your health secretary looks a bad thing to do at this time, all things considered. Putting aside any views of his performances (which have not impressed me) , I've always thought he's a total lightweight. 

I've long felt that Health Secretary was a thankless job, and that all the government wants from you is to piss off as few people in the NHS as you can. That being the case, the government hasn't really taken it seriously as they would of other positions and filled it with someone that "needs a role" for no reason other than they are a senior politician. When things go wrong, you have someone who quite clearly struggles and looks uncomfortable; not very reassuring. I don't think he should carry the can for Johnson's failings, but the disappearing act he partakes is designed to deflect blame away from where it should be placed, and I imagine it'll work. 

As for the scientists... the transcripts of SAGE meetings a few weeks back made for grim reading and, in hindsight, were horrifying. Bottom line - they delivered bad advice. If your advice is out of kilter with the rest of the world, your arse will be in the firing line if things go badly. Since things have indeed gone very badly, the advice given ought to be looked at those that provided it asked for a thorough explanation of why they shunned the approach taken by most other countries. A lot of people would still have died if we'd taken the approach other countries did, but it's very hard to argue we wouldn't have been in a better position. "We only advise and don't make decisions" isn't going to cut it as a defence anymore than "we were guided by the science" is. 

Decent article in Private Eye about where the science went wrong, including Professor Ferguson ballsing up the figures early on.

 

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1524/columnists

 

Nobody in any of the top government positions at the moment gives you much confidence in their abilities. It's debatable whether a lot of them would be competent MPs, never mind being responsible for a government department.

 

[superbigal]

Who ever advises the Health Secretary and who the SAGE group reported to and who also filtered the scientific advice is not held accountable.
 

Said official also pushed for the centralised app.
Said officials mates profited from the failed app.
Everyone knows the public sector and IT is a bad partnership. f**k up after f**k up.

[Dee Man]

16 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Said official also pushed for the centralised app.
Said officials mates profited from the failed app.
Everyone knows the public sector and IT is a bad partnership. f**k up after f**k up.

Isn't there some sort of legislation against nepotism and shouldn't there be inquiries into contracts for friends if so? If there isn't, there should be. 

[Todd_is_God]

Saw this on FB. Shared by a teacher, no less.

https://www.change.org/p/education-boards-support-the-introduction-of-blended-learning-into-scottish-schools-on-reopening-in-august/c?source_location=petition_show

Quote

People all learn differently. Studies have found that when sitting in a class, people of any age only retain around 6% of the information. Teaching young people is one of the hardest but most rewarding job in the world. We must support teachers in their development of blended learning models of teaching during this time of global pandemic. People are still dying.

The bit in bold annoys me. Trying to spin blended learning as an improvement over the traditional model of education really isn't what any of this is about.

The comments section is exactly as you would expect...

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I suppose it's not unreasonable for a teacher to focus on the teaching/learning bit of why kids are at school rather than the so their parents can go to work bit of why kids are at school.

All very well, but in what other job can you essentially say "over 9/10ths of what I do here doesn't make any difference" and it's fine?

If the school model is that inefficient why hasn't it been brought up before?

It's a ridiculous line designed to influence daft parents into thinking that them overseeing their children sitting in the kitchen on an iPad is a more efficient way of learning than them being lead in person by a qualified teacher.

 

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, MixuFruit said:

... most jobs?

If you walked up to your boss and said "94% of my work here makes no difference" i'm fairly certain they'd soon be saving 100% of your salary

[D.A.F.C]

How much of any job is needless jumping through hoops?
Everyone does stuff thats daft just because they work for a toxic employer who doesnt care or cant see that doing it differently would save cash.
Sometimes they cant because it costs too much 'weve always done it that way'
Cars run better on square wheels.

[D.A.F.C]

If you walked up to your boss and said "94% of my work here makes no difference" i'm fairly certain they'd soon be saving 100% of your salary

100% of bosses are unnecessary.

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

That doesn't subtract from the underlying truth of it. I mean we've just had a months long experiment demonstrating which jobs are essential and which aren't.

I'm not disagreeing with the underlying sentiment of it.

More pointing out how ridiculous it is saying it out loud and, in this case, using it as a way of pretending "blended learning" is a positive thing.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, D.A.F.C said:

19 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

If you walked up to your boss and said "94% of my work here makes no difference" i'm fairly certain they'd soon be saving 100% of your salary

100% of bosses are unnecessary.

You get an alert when someone types "boss" don't you?

[Jacksgranda]

Listening to a spat on Radio Ulster about how and when the schools will re-open. The schools here close in a week, same as England, afaik. (Obviously they have been closed for weeks). The teachers union rep is on saying planning and setting up for the re-start will have to be done in a week as the school holidays start and if things aren't in place by then, it won't be done on time. 

There's a teacher on now saying there's no chance of them not taking their holidays. She's kind of contradicting herself by saying they don't know when they'll get their holidays as they will still be working (although obviously not getting things prepared for re-opening under social distancing requirements etc.). Glad she's not teaching my grandchildren...

Edited June 22, 2020 by Jacksgranda

[Todd_is_God]

Is it only teachers that we want to bash for not wanting to have to come in to work during their holidays, or is it everyone?

[Marshmallo]

42 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

If you walked up to your boss and said "94% of my work here makes no difference" i'm fairly certain they'd soon be saving 100% of your salary

100% of bosses are unnecessary.

What a lot of shite

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

I suppose it's not unreasonable for a teacher to focus on the teaching/learning bit of why kids are at school rather than the so their parents can go to work bit of why kids are at school.

The focus seems to be on making sure that kids are in front of a teacher for 100% of the time, without considering there may be other ways to improve the quality of education they are receiving. 

I can see the merit in suggesting that say 66% of the time with a teacher  in small groups might produce better outcomes (and better learning) than 100% of the time spent sitting in a class of 32.

It's a bit of a shame that no-one has considered this might be a good time to deal with the known problems of our education system and consider other methodologies that might look very different, but be better for the kids and the country in the long run. 

Edit: not suggesting this blended learning business is any good, more pointing out that doing things the way we always have done just because that's the way we've always done them isn't a particularly strong argument. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by madwullie

[WhiteRoseKillie]

9 hours ago, peasy23 said:

Decent article in Private Eye about where the science went wrong, including Professor Ferguson ballsing up the figures early on.

 

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1524/columnists

 

Nobody in any of the top government positions at the moment gives you much confidence in their abilities. It's debatable whether a lot of them would be competent MPs, never mind being responsible for a government department.

 

"MD" has been absolutely superb in his documenting of this constantly rolling clusterfúck. Decent piece in the latest "Page 94" podcast as well. I only wish the Eye wasn't alone in its standards - the mainsream journalists (press and broadcast) should be shown this, and told, "this is how it's done, you lazy, incompetent, stupid patsies".

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

All very well, but in what other job can you essentially say "over 9/10ths of what I do here doesn't make any difference" and it's fine?

If the school model is that inefficient why hasn't it been brought up before?

It's a ridiculous line designed to influence daft parents into thinking that them overseeing their children sitting in the kitchen on an iPad is a more efficient way of learning than them being lead in person by a qualified teacher.

 

Teachers have been crying out for smaller classes, better IT infrastructure and training, time for development of better resources and methodologies for years. 

Austerity and the push from authorities and SLT to have your a school a couple of points higher in an excel graph usuay put paid to that. Maybe it's changed dramatically in the 3 or so years since I've been out of teaching, but I doubt it.

SNP govt as much to blame as anyone else for this btw. 

 

* braces self *

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 hours ago, superbigal said:

Said official also pushed for the centralised app.
Said officials mates profited from the failed app.
Everyone knows the public sector and IT is a bad partnership. f**k up after f**k up.

You're not seriously framing this in a "Public Sector baad" way, are you?

"Right Wing arsehóles taking advantage of positions of power to enrich friends and colleagues by awarding PS contracts wherever said friends profit", maybe.

[vikingTON]

21 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Is it only teachers that we want to bash for not wanting to have to come in to work during their holidays, or is it everyone?

If NHS staff operated on the same half-arsed, clock-watching, my work here is done principle as teachers then the country's healthcare system would be overwhelmed. Not just by coronavirus but every bog-standard winter as well.

As teachers are state employees who provide a public service and haven't been doing even remotely their contracted workload over the past three months while still picking up 100% pay, it is entirely reasonable for them to be expected to make up for that lost ground later in the year. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by vikingTON

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

I suppose it's not unreasonable for a teacher to focus on the teaching/learning bit of why kids are at school rather than the so their parents can go to work bit of why kids are at school.

Absolutely this. Anyone who believes that the prime motivation for re-opening schools is anything other than releasing the kids' resource units parents to get back to work really isn't paying attention.

The idea that this Government wants the Working Class educated beyond a basic ability to contribute to the economy is fucking laughable. 'Twas ever thus, mind - look at the number of grown adults who were genuinely unaware of the less savoury aspects of Empire until some of the hoi-polloi got a bit shouty about it recently.