The UK response - Part II - read OP

Floppybits

Enzokk wrote: »

Cummings before a Select Committee about the response. So who do we believe? The person who weaponised lies for Brexit, or the current government who is, well liars as well.

Johnson didn't take the pandemic seriously apparently, was joking about getting injected with the virus because it was nothing to worry about. Makes sense when you remember him shaking hands with people in hospital. Guess he changed his mind while lying in ICU.


Updates here

Wonder would ever see something like this here. Cummings is throwing everyone under the bus.

Dr. Em

ongarite wrote: »

Indian variant is prevalent in certain UK cities due to demographics & vaccine hesitancy.
Vaccine take-up among non-white population is at worrying low levels IMO.

Its important to find out why take-up is so low & get them vaccinated ASAP.

The media really needs to stop automatically attributing low vaccine take-up to vaccine hesitancy. (I'm not having a go at you at all - I've seen the same reporting.) No matter the cause for low take-up, the messaging should be focusing on any possible barriers to vaccination, just as you said, e.g. is there poor internet coverage in those households? A lack of vaccination centres? A lack of transportation? A language barrier?

By assuming that low take-up is due to vaccine hesitancy and saying so repeatedly, they risk encouraging vaccine hesitancy. If people assume others aren't taking the vaccine, they will start wondering if there is a reason that they shouldn't take it. I'm not saying there isn't vaccine hesitancy, just that the messaging is so very counterproductive.

wadacrack

Dominic Cummings speaking alot of hard truths. Refreshing to hear someone being so candid about his own failings and those of senior politicians and indeed the whole political system. He concedes that public health was always secondary to personal political gain.

PhantomHat

Floppybits wrote: »

Wonder would ever see something like this here. Cummings is throwing everyone under the bus.

Did you hear that vociferous laugh ring out across the country of Ireland? That was me.

I would love to be wrong but I seriously doubt that would ever happen in this country of self preserving snakes

Seth Brundle

Floppybits wrote: »

Wonder would ever see something like this here. Cummings is throwing everyone under the bus.

Does it say aything about "£350m per week" on the side of that bus?

robinph

Dr. Em wrote: »

The media really needs to stop automatically attributing low vaccine take-up to vaccine hesitancy. (I'm not having a go at you at all - I've seen the same reporting.) No matter the cause for low take-up, the messaging should be focusing on any possible barriers to vaccination, just as you said, e.g. is there poor internet coverage in those households? A lack of vaccination centres? A lack of transportation? A language barrier?

By assuming that low take-up is due to vaccine hesitancy and saying so repeatedly, they risk encouraging vaccine hesitancy. If people assume others aren't taking the vaccine, they will start wondering if there is a reason that they shouldn't take it. I'm not saying there isn't vaccine hesitancy, just that the messaging is so very counterproductive.

Don't know about any specific local variation in languages used in the messaging to different communities in order to encourage them to turn up and get vaccinated. But at the vaccination centers they have all the information leaflets for the vaccine from the manufacturers, and the NHS branded leaflets telling you the same stuff but in slightly less technical medical style, and that is available in about 20 different languages in stacks besides the people checking you in on arrival at the mass vaccine centre. Whole bunch of languages that I'd never heard of, and now I think about it I'm not sure the piles even included Spanish, French, German etc.

It's not that they aren't making the information available for everyone in every language, but the way to get people to turn up in the first place almost certainly needs to be more targeted to specific cultures.

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

Dominic Cummings speaking alot of hard truths. Refreshing to hear someone being so candid about his own failings and those of senior politicians and indeed the whole political system. He concedes that public health was always secondary to personal political gain.

He seems to have gone from "I made mistakes" to "If it was all left to me none of this would have happened".

robinph

Aegir wrote: »

He seems to have gone from "I made mistakes" to "If it was all left to me none of this would have happened".

We'd have all been allowed to travel around the country and go on holidays to beauty spots without needing to isolate if ill with covid if he'd had his way from the start. And Specsavers and Brew Dog would have missed out on some marketing opportunities.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

We'd have all been allowed to travel around the country and go on holidays to beauty spots without needing to isolate if ill with covid if he'd had his way from the start. And Specsavers and Brew Dog would have missed out on some marketing opportunities.

Not to forget having all the benefits of the government using our bank and phone data to track all these movements, before selling it to the Russians.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Not to forget having all the benefits of the government using our bank and phone data to track all these movements, before selling it to the Russians.

Meh. When you've given all your data to Google and Apple and Facebook and the banks and the supermarkets, I think worrying about giving it to the Department of Health is straining at a gnat, really.

Mr.Wemmick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Meh. When you've given all your data to Google and Apple and Facebook and the banks and the supermarkets, I think worrying about giving it to the Department of Health is straining at a gnat, really.

Disagree.

FB, et al are held to some sort of scrutiny and come under considerable attention and criticism for their use of data and privacy laws. The UK government is no longer held to account by anyone and have eroded laws and are actively taking them away.. activities are hidden and their hush-hush underhand policies are protected by the obliging press.

Speaking of the devil, NHS Digital will start sharing everyone's data in the UK on 1st July this year. If you do not want the government to sell your medical info, you have to opt out by June 23rd.. although no one knows this. The press are keeping dead silent. Megan no doubt will have grown two heads and throw her hat in the ring for presidency by June 22nd - keep the public busy, neck deep in hate.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Meh. When you've given all your data to Google and Apple and Facebook and the banks and the supermarkets, I think worrying about giving it to the Department of Health is straining at a gnat, really.

No problem giving it to the department of heath and no problem with GCHQ reading all my emails.

giving it to Dominic Cunnings does worry me though.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

No problem giving it to the department of heath and no problem with GCHQ reading all my emails.

giving it to Dominic Cunnings does worry me though.

Oh, he probably got it from Facebook anyway.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Speaking of the devil, NHS Digital will start sharing everyone's data in the UK on 1st July this year. If you do not want the government to sell your medical info, you have to opt out by June 23rd.. although no one knows this. The press are keeping dead silent. Megan no doubt will have grown two heads and throw her hat in the ring for presidency by June 22nd - keep the public busy, neck deep in hate.

https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out/mythbusting-social-media-posts

There is no deadline for patients or public to opt-out of sharing your data for planning and research. The deadline of 30 September 2021 was only ever for health and social care organisations, which need to get ready to manage national data opt-out requests from patients.

Since the launch of the national data-opt-out in May 2018, NHS Digital and a number of other organisations have been upholding the opt-out.

When the national data opt-out was launched in May 2018 there was a full public campaign. This included national media activity and posters and leaflets in a range of health settings including GP practices, dentists, hospitals and pharmacies. These posters and leaflets are still available in these settings. There is also a section on the public-facing NHS website here: nhs.uk/your-NHS-data-matters

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, he probably got it from Facebook anyway.

or some "Associates" in St Petersbourg

Seth Brundle

Does the trading of NHS data breach GDPR which the UK was and, as I understood it, claims to be a party to?

Mr.Wemmick

Aegir wrote: »

https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out/mythbusting-social-media-posts

Nope. Incorrect. Funny how the myth busting deflecting info comes direct from the people doing the taking.. lol. Cracks me up.

While its press release on the matter states that people can “opt-out at any time”, the privacy notice states: “NHS Digital will however still hold the patient data which was shared with us before you registered the Type 1 opt-out” – meaning that for anyone who has not opted-out by the time that their GP history is first extracted, the information taken will never be deleted.


https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/19/the-government-wants-to-sell-your-gp-medical-records-heres-how-to-opt-out/

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does the trading of NHS data breach GDPR which the UK was and, as I understood it, claims to be a party to?

it isn't "Traded" it is shared.

Providing the criteria for sharing data is met then no, it will not break GDPR guidelines.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Providing the criteria for sharing data is met then no, it will not break GDPR guidelines.

Rules. The GDPR isn't guidance; it's law.

As an EU regulation, the GDPR no longer binds the UK as a matter of international law. The UK is free to adopt whatever data protection laws it wants.

But the laws it has adopted — set out in the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are, in substance, a verbatim transcript of the EU GDPR. They are generally referred to as "UK GDPR"

The UK can change this at any time, of course. But current policy is not to.

Any UK organisation that offers goods or services to, or monitors the behaviour of, EU residents also to comply with the EU GDPR, and there's nothing the UK government can do to absolve them of this obligation. So if those organisations can't or won't do that, their only option would be to withdraw from the EU market altogether. Given that, relieving them of any of the obligations they owe to UK residents probably wouldn't be of much use to these organisations, which is a consideration that suggest that the UK may be unlikely to change its policy of mirroring EU data protection requirements, except in very marginal ways.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rules. The GDPR isn't guidance; it's law.

As an EU regulation, the GDPR no longer binds the UK as a matter of international law. The UK is free to adopt whatever data protection laws it wants.

But the laws it has adopted — set out in the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are, in substance, a verbatim transcript of the EU GDPR. They are generally referred to as "UK GDPR"

The UK can change this at any time, of course. But current policy is not to.

Any UK organisation that offers goods or services to, or monitors the behaviour of, EU residents also to comply with the EU GDPR, and there's nothing the UK government can do to absolve them of this obligation. So if those organisations can't or won't do that, their only option would be to withdraw from the EU market altogether. Given that, relieving them of any of the obligations they owe to UK residents probably wouldn't be of much use to these organisations, which is a consideration that suggest that the UK may be unlikely to change its policy of mirroring EU data protection requirements, except in very marginal ways.

ok, rules.

as long as the data is shared in line with those rules, it is not breaking GDPR rules.

If it is in the public interest, which this seems to be as they will only share it for the purpose of health research and if it is proportionate, again they have said that it will be and if they give the option to opt out, which they clearly are, then the rules are not broken.

GDPR regulations do not prevent the sharing of data, if data could not be shared then the world would grind to a halt. The new (ish) regulations just govern the basis on how the information is shared.

Seth Brundle

Aegir wrote: »

it isn't "Traded" it is shared.

Providing the criteria for sharing data is met then no, it will not break GDPR guidelines.

ok. Has the data been collected with the patients knowledge that it will be shared (and used in a manner different to which it was provided)?

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

ok. Has the data been collected with the patients knowledge that it will be shared (and used in a manner different to which it was provided)?

we're going down a rabbit hole here.

If you go to a GP then they collect data on you, that's pretty much the whole reason for going. That data needs to be shared and as long as that is made very clear, usually in a leaflet or posters, then there is no problem.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/contact-us/privacy-notice/how-we-use-your-information/our-services/patients-registered-with-gp-practices/

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Nope. Incorrect. Funny how the myth busting deflecting info comes direct from the people doing the taking.. lol. Cracks me up.

While its press release on the matter states that people can “opt-out at any time”, the privacy notice states: “NHS Digital will however still hold the patient data which was shared with us before you registered the Type 1 opt-out” – meaning that for anyone who has not opted-out by the time that their GP history is first extracted, the information taken will never be deleted.


https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/19/the-government-wants-to-sell-your-gp-medical-records-heres-how-to-opt-out/

You do know that the main reason for this is so your GP/pharmacy records can be accessed straight away in an emergency.

Seth Brundle

Aegir wrote: »

we're going down a rabbit hole here.

If you go to a GP then they collect data on you, that's pretty much the whole reason for going. That data needs to be shared and as long as that is made very clear, usually in a leaflet or posters, then there is no problem.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/contact-us/privacy-notice/how-we-use-your-information/our-services/patients-registered-with-gp-practices/

ok. I'm unsure of the specific data but on the above basis, what is the need for an opt-out process?

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

ok. I'm unsure of the specific data but on the above basis, what is the need for an opt-out process?

to comply with GDPR rules.

it's one of those storm in a tea cup things that rags like the bylinetimes thrive on. Your data needs to be shared for the system to work, it is also shared to help with research and forecasting. It is only the latter part you can opt out of.

brickster69

90% of UK hospital admission are have not had a vaccine
https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/27/matt-hancock-says-90-of-people-in-hospital-with-covid-havent-had-vaccine-14655558/?ito=push-notification&ci=194359&si=22786189&ai=14655558

gormdubhgorm

wadacrack wrote: »

Dominic Cummings speaking alot of hard truths. Refreshing to hear someone being so candid about his own failings and those of senior politicians and indeed the whole political system. He concedes that public health was always secondary to personal political gain.

I thought so as well. It was fascinating to see someone 'lift the lid'. He seemed genuine to me anyway. However only 14% of the British public believe him it seems

indioblack

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought so as well. It was fascinating to see someone 'lift the lid'. He seemed genuine to me anyway. However only 14% of the British public believe him it seems

It's worth considering why he's saying this now. I picked out two points he made - the slowness of the government response and the moving of people from hospitals into care homes. These were issues raised in early 2020 - but not by him as far as I am aware.
If he was so concerned about the ineptitude at the top of government, why did he not quit his position and speak out?

Mr.Wemmick

Aegir wrote: »

to comply with GDPR rules.

it's one of those storm in a tea cup things that rags like the bylinetimes thrive on. Your data needs to be shared for the system to work, it is also shared to help with research and forecasting. It is only the latter part you can opt out of.

Storm in a teacup?! I know many lying rags in the UK and Byline is not one of them.

The new appointment of Simon Bolton as interim CEO of NHS digital is rather eye raising. Bolton will join digital NHS in June straight from his role at Test and Trace. Yet again a senior appointment of someone with no expertise in health and coming from an area that failed spectacularly in the UK and was known for being secretive and non-transparent.

Under the current government, the mistrust people have for the planned changes in the NHS is quite valid.

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

90% of UK hospital admission are have not had a vaccine
https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/27/matt-hancock-says-90-of-people-in-hospital-with-covid-havent-had-vaccine-14655558/?ito=push-notification&ci=194359&si=22786189&ai=14655558

Interesting. It suggests that 10% of those who are hospitalised with coronavirus have been fully vaccinated. (Presumably, of the remaining 90%, a fair chunk have had one shot of vaccine, but caught the virus anyway.)

Which is just an illustration of what we knew already - the vaccine provides a high degree of protection, but not total protection. A fully vaccinated person can not only contract Covid, but can contract it badly enough to need hospitalisation.