"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Of course I haven't worked in them all, but the pressures that induce
private practitioners and hospitals to take risks with safety exist
everywhere.


Regardless of any such pressures, the fact remains that the incentive for them not to
take such risks - the possibility of being sued for medical neglicence by patients
who can afford to employ legal advice - either the patients themselves or their
insurers -
is usually greater

Basically you can only know that they're taking risks as a result of things going wrong.
But when things go wrong this makes them liable to negligence claims. Sufficient of
which would put them out of business. Both financially and in terms of their reputation.

I've repeated this point three times now.

If you're unwilling to acknowledge. that the possibility of being sued for negligence
can have a profound on peoples behaviour, either as individuals or as organisations
then there really is no point in continuing this conversation.

michael adams

....

On 19/08/2020 8:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:

On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:

or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001



Further more, it's truly, solar system warming.

On 19/08/2020 20:20, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

Why does everything have to be binary? Is it some pervasive consequence of having a
digital world?

The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and Mao,

So that for you, with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao it's not an open and shut case then ?

Unlike "binary" people who condemn them out of hand, for you they also had their good
points.

Which then raises the question as to why you chose them as an example in the first place.

Does it not ?


michael adams

...


I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same
same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They
successfully sold a single big lie.

Mussolini might have been a better example than Stalin. They probably
all had some good points, but their standing in history really does not
look very good. I think it is unlikely that this will ever be
substantially reversed.

On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:17:10 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same
same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They
successfully sold a single big lie.

I credit Johnson with more than a single lie.

Trump: less lie, more fantasy.

Owain

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 08:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:

On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:

or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand .
.. . er, well, um.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/08/2020 11:42, michael adams wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2020 08:46, michael adams wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance is
what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

Nonsense. Risk is shouldered by the taxpayer, with little of the return:

https://academic.oup.com/icc/article.../4/1093/753299


--
Cheers, Rob

quote

Abstract

We present a framework, called the Risk-Reward Nexus, to study
the relationship between innovation and inequality

[...]

We argue that it is the collective, cumulative, and uncertain
characteristics of the innovation process that make this disconnect
between risks and rewards possible.

[...]

William Lazonick, Center for Industrial Competitiveness, UMass Lowell,
O'Leary 500, 61 Wilder Street, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. e-mail

/quote

Yes. It's not exactly open-shut - Mazzucato's work is more applied.

Which as it stands is simply a bald assertion unsupported by either
argument or evidence.

I linked to something called an 'abstract' - an outline of a paper. If
you're not convinced, read the whole paper.

Therefore for those readers of the Group without a subscription perhaps
you could summarise his argument - preferably in your own words - so
that its relevance to the present question can be better assessed.

Thank you.

You don't need a sub:

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1553088/




--
Cheers, Rob

"newshound" wrote in message
.. .
On 19/08/2020 20:20, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

Why does everything have to be binary? Is it some pervasive consequence of having a
digital world?

The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and Mao,

So that for you, with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao it's not an open and shut case then ?

Unlike "binary" people who condemn them out of hand, for you they also had their good
points.

Which then raises the question as to why you chose them as an example in the first
place.

Does it not ?


michael adams

...


I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same same way as
Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They successfully sold a single big
lie.

Mussolini might have been a better example than Stalin. They probably all had some good
points, but their standing in history really does not look very good. I think it is
unlikely that this will ever be substantially reversed.

I'm sorry I'm stil not sure why you chose those examples or exactly what
point you're trying to make.

The biggest example of a binary thinker in politics in recent times is undoubtedly
Margaret Thatcher. As far as she was concerned, you were either for her or you were
against her. This is exactly what Margaret Thatchers supporters admired her
for and still do, She had dehfinite opinions and had no time for the waffkers who
they claim had allowed Britain to drift into the mess it became.
Other people claim she wrecked British industry and that her philosophy was totally
flawed. She was and remains a binary figure who splits opinion down the
middle.
..
Similarly Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks had British Polictians
paid more attention to Winson Churchill in the 1930's Ubfortunately by that
stage Chiurchill was already a binary figure - most Condervatives regarded
him as a disloyal over ambitious windbag with very poor judgement.
It was only his personal friends among politicians who had any time for him.

He was only chosen as the new PM because all the other candidates
were proven non-binary wafflers who'd run out of ideas..

And I can assure you that had Churchill not been pretty "binary" in June 1940 in his
attitude towards Hilter in resisting the entreaties of the Italian Ambassador
while its not exactly a case that you'd be speaking German right now, but things
would certainly have worked out differently.


michael adams

....

Yes, I'm not so worried about Johnson, but Trump and some of the extreme
right and left wing folks out there who make boris look like Pudsey bear by
comparison. Some would actually suggest older and disabled people should be
allowed to die.
Brian

--
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:


Which does of course depend on how you view the current pandemic. The
greatest
ever threat to civilisation and the word economy as we know it, or the
greatest
ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.


michael adams

....

Why does everything have to be binary? Is it some pervasive consequence of
having a digital world?

The truth lies somewhere in between. Covid is quite a serious threat, we
don't yet know quite how serious. AIDS turned out not to be as bad as it
could have been, at least in the more developed parts of the world.

Climate change is worth keeping an eye on, although to my mind the real
benefits might be in air pollution and the cost of current policies is
certainly significant.

Both Thatcher and Blair had some good policies.

The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao, and it gives us Trump and Johnson now. It's easy to sell a simple
proposition, much more difficult to present a balanced view.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:49:13 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 19/08/2020 11:09, T i m wrote:


Of course, you can even put the former on the side of a bus,
explaining why it's lies and BS takes more effort.

Interestingly, that's not a particularly new idea

https://www.quora.com/Whose-quote-A-...t-its-boots-on

Well indeed ... and we have both spotted it. ;-)

All that sort of thing is why some were willing / keen to accept the
result of the referendum when it's patently obvious many of the tiny
number of votes needed to swing the result from 'known' to 'gamble'
could have been swung by the lies / BS [1] printed on the side of a
bus.

And once many people have 'made up their mind' (influenced) by such
lies, they have a tenancy to stick with it, even against facts because
they don't want to look like they have been suckered (confirmation
bias).

Cheers, T i m

[1] The figure stated was way too high and even the correct figure has
to be seen in context with all the other costs of running a country
(eg, fairly insignificant).

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/eu...-us-a-fortune/

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:52:29 +0100, newshound
wrote:

snip

Beautifully well put.

Thanks!

Trouble is, by the time you work this out everyone thinks you are just
old and cranky and ignores you anyway.

Yup, because they are all plugged into a matrix mate. ;-(

A tolerance, acceptance or even supporting of 'wrong' and
'wrongdoing' are things that sometimes take many a large kick up the
backside before they snap out of the matrix and see it all for what it
is (and they / we all will, in time). ;-)

Like this:
https://youtu.be/XumGZk_LPX8

(That fits well with the 'what's wrong with the world' topic).

And it's not just eating meat ... dairy is another matrix ... ;-(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI

Cheers, T i m

Yes. It's not exactly open-shut - Mazzucato's work is more applied.


open shut dentistry....I'll get my coat....

On 20/08/2020 09:33, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:17:10 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same
same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They
successfully sold a single big lie.

I credit Johnson with more than a single lie.

Trump: less lie, more fantasy.

Owain

Biggest liar was of course Blair


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 19/08/2020 20:17, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 07:24:52 BST, Tim+ wrote:

michael adams wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:24:07 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

Got a text from my dentist saying aerosol work under the NHS is banned
but if you go private they can do it....would this be correct ? .....


According to Google "aerosol work" requires negative pressure rooms
or similar. Presumably the NHS is unwilling to cover the cost of
installing such rooms and so their use is confined to private
patients whose treatment will.

Or more likely, private dentists can just do what they like as they're not
restricted by NHS rules.

If they're not worried about the possibility of catching Covid9 themselves
and infecting all of their private patients into the bargain, and getting
sued as a result, then you're perfectly correct.

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Don't be a ****. They'd soon be struck off if many of their patients started
getting ill.

You are a naive fool. The out of hours care in your average private
hospital borders on being negligent in many cases. Few qualified staff
around, poor access to intensive care if things go wrong, consultant away
playing golf or performing NHS work at the same time when he/she should be
available to monitor their post-op private patients.

If only patients who think that private is best knew....

Tim


The senior thoracic surgeon at the NHS hospital where I worked
in the path labs in the 70's had the nickname 'chopper Harley'
among all the other medical and nursing staff, plus the technicians
in the blood bank.

On 19/08/2020 20:22, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 07:24, Tim+ wrote:
Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.


I love a bit of proof by assertion in the morning.
Its actually the NHS that used to cut costs.

Remind me, when did you actually work in the NHS? Oh, thats right, you
have no first hand experience. You lose.

Tim




I did in the 70's. Two typical district general hospitals and
a London tesching hospital famous for diagnosing and treating the
early days of leukaemia and related diseases.

The difference in outcomes in the two types of hospital was far
greater than any difference between private and NHS.

On 19/08/2020 10:43, RJH wrote:
On 19/08/2020 08:46, michael adams wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...


Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety.Â* I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance
is what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

Nonsense. Risk is shouldered by the taxpayer, with little of the return:

https://academic.oup.com/icc/article.../4/1093/753299



Which is why all of the high-tech equipment that every NHS hospital
utterly depends on was developed and made in a country that simply
does NOT have a free-for-all 'NHS' health care system. And that means
primarily the USA, but also Israel, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Finland
and other places.

The USA kit exists *because* of the profit motive. If you design and
build a laboratory analyser that does more or better tests, or needs
fewer expensive people to operate it, then it will sell like hot cakes
to the USA home market.

Those companies then become global companies selling them all around
the world.

On Wednesday, 19 August 2020 21:48:54 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Of course I haven't worked in them all, but the pressures that induce
private practitioners and hospitals to take risks with safety exist
everywhere.


Regardless of any such pressures, the fact remains that the incentive for them not to
take such risks - the possibility of being sued for medical neglicence by patients
who can afford to employ legal advice - either the patients themselves or their
insurers -
is usually greater

Basically you can only know that they're taking risks as a result of things going wrong.
But when things go wrong this makes them liable to negligence claims. Sufficient of
which would put them out of business. Both financially and in terms of their reputation.

I've repeated this point three times now.

If you're unwilling to acknowledge. that the possibility of being sued for negligence
can have a profound on peoples behaviour, either as individuals or as organisations
then there really is no point in continuing this conversation.

michael adams

...

why are so many people this naive about medical practice?

On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:54:11 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:
On 19/08/2020 08:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:
On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:


or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.

most amusing

And on those views, she does something about it.

yes, unfortunately.

Which is why all of the high-tech equipment that every NHS hospital
utterly depends on was developed and made in a country that simply
does NOT have a free-for-all 'NHS' health care system. And that means
primarily the USA, but also Israel, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Finland
and other places.

The USA kit exists *because* of the profit motive. If you design and
build a laboratory analyser that does more or better tests, or needs
fewer expensive people to operate it, then it will sell like hot cakes
to the USA home market.

Those companies then become global companies selling them all around
the world.

all very true greed fuels progress....just look at the price of dental
implants they charge fortunes because they can....I'm waiting for
Implants R Us.....and the market to be decimated in the same way fancy
overpriced opticians were all undercut.....

On 19/08/2020 20:23, Tim+ wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance is what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

I presume youve worked for the NHS and worked in private hospitals?

Neither system is perfect but corner cutting occurs in both systems. In the
NHS though there is probably more overview and regulation. In the private
sector you can get away with murder, sometimes literally.

Tim


And the NHS too. And the consultants and hospital administrators
then make it as difficult as possible to get to the truth.


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-21/...ligence-claims

what does this tell you ?.

On 20/08/2020 10:13, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes, I'm not so worried about Johnson, but Trump and some of the extreme
right and left wing folks out there who make boris look like Pudsey bear by
comparison. Some would actually suggest older and disabled people should be
allowed to die.
Brian




Just as growing industry needed workers and therefore allowed for an
increase in population, so there is a need to downsize for a reducing
industry, or, more precisely due to automation, a reducing workforce.

Profiteers are not interested in the well being of people (idle
workforce). The less it has to give to the 'needy' the better.

The UK is never going to out compete the growing industry of other,
greater nations. Meanwhile, we buy cheap from abroad supporting those
other industries?

Many towns have a huge number of people on benefits. This comes at a
cost to the working labour force.

I think it's time many of us who have little or nothing better to do,
focus a little inward and help at a community level in an effort to
soften the blow.


....Ray.

On 19/08/2020 10:06, newshound wrote:
The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao, and it gives us Trump and Johnson now.

Err, are you comparing Trump with Boris ??. Really ??.

For all his faults, Trump has made changes. Standing up to China,
which seems to be going the way Germany went in the 1930's is a
good thing.

Boris has gone into hiding, having done so many U turns his
brain must be spinning.

On Thursday, 20 August 2020 19:38:20 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 19/08/2020 20:23, Tim+ wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance is what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

I presume youve worked for the NHS and worked in private hospitals?

Neither system is perfect but corner cutting occurs in both systems. In the
NHS though there is probably more overview and regulation. In the private
sector you can get away with murder, sometimes literally.

Tim


And the NHS too. And the consultants and hospital administrators
then make it as difficult as possible to get to the truth.


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-21/...ligence-claims

what does this tell you ?.

It says €œWe are now awarding compensation in sums of money higher than almost anywhere in the world. What we need is a fundamental change to the legal system.€�

No, what we need is a fundamental change in the NHS. They will keep being sued until they wake up & reform.


NT

On 20/08/2020 19:51, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 19:38:20 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 19/08/2020 20:23, Tim+ wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance is what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

I presume youve worked for the NHS and worked in private hospitals?

Neither system is perfect but corner cutting occurs in both systems. In the
NHS though there is probably more overview and regulation. In the private
sector you can get away with murder, sometimes literally.

Tim


And the NHS too. And the consultants and hospital administrators
then make it as difficult as possible to get to the truth.


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-21/...ligence-claims

what does this tell you ?.

It says €œWe are now awarding compensation in sums of money higher than almost anywhere in the world. What we need is a fundamental change to the legal system.€�

No, what we need is a fundamental change in the NHS. They will keep being sued until they wake up & reform.


NT


If NHS buildings reverted to being 'crown estate' as I believe they
used to be, then suing the NHS would no longer be possible.

On 20/08/2020 16:40, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

Which is why all of the high-tech equipment that every NHS hospital
utterly depends on was developed and made in a country that simply
does NOT have a free-for-all 'NHS' health care system. And that means
primarily the USA, but also Israel, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Finland
and other places.

The USA kit exists *because* of the profit motive. If you design and
build a laboratory analyser that does more or better tests, or needs
fewer expensive people to operate it, then it will sell like hot cakes
to the USA home market.

Those companies then become global companies selling them all around
the world.

all very true greed fuels progress....just look at the price of dental
implants they charge fortunes because they can....I'm waiting for
Implants R Us.....and the market to be decimated in the same way fancy
overpriced opticians were all undercut.....

I think you can get a full set of permanent dentures (top and bottom)
for £20k which sounds quite reasonable, though I'm not sure how good
they would be or how much maintenance is required.

--
Max Demian

On 20/08/2020 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/2020 09:33, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:17:10 UTC+1, newshoundÂ* wrote:
I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same
same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They
successfully sold a single big lie.

I credit Johnson with more than a single lie.

Trump: less lie, more fantasy.

Owain

Biggest liar was of course Blair


Not even in the also rans

On 20/08/2020 20:22, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/08/2020 16:40, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

Which is why all of the high-tech equipment that every NHS hospital
utterly depends on was developed and made in a country that simply
does NOT have a free-for-all 'NHS' health care system. And that means
primarily the USA, but also Israel, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Finland
and other places.

The USA kit exists *because* of the profit motive. If you design and
build a laboratory analyser that does more or better tests, or needs
fewer expensive people to operate it, then it will sell like hot cakes
to the USA home market.

Those companies then become global companies selling them all around
the world.

all very true greed fuels progress....just look at the price of dental
implants they charge fortunes because they can....I'm waiting for
Implants R Us.....and the market to be decimated in the same way fancy
overpriced opticians were all undercut.....

I think you can get a full set of permanent dentures (top and bottom)
for £20k which sounds quite reasonable, though I'm not sure how good
they would be or how much maintenance is required.

jeezus what a rip off

On 20/08/2020 10:07, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
.. .
On 19/08/2020 20:20, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

Why does everything have to be binary? Is it some pervasive consequence of having a
digital world?

The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and Mao,

So that for you, with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao it's not an open and shut case then ?

Unlike "binary" people who condemn them out of hand, for you they also had their good
points.

Which then raises the question as to why you chose them as an example in the first
place.

Does it not ?


michael adams

...


I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same same way as
Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They successfully sold a single big
lie.

Mussolini might have been a better example than Stalin. They probably all had some good
points, but their standing in history really does not look very good. I think it is
unlikely that this will ever be substantially reversed.

I'm sorry I'm stil not sure why you chose those examples or exactly what
point you're trying to make.

The biggest example of a binary thinker in politics in recent times is undoubtedly
Margaret Thatcher. As far as she was concerned, you were either for her or you were
against her. This is exactly what Margaret Thatchers supporters admired her
for and still do, She had dehfinite opinions and had no time for the waffkers who
they claim had allowed Britain to drift into the mess it became.
Other people claim she wrecked British industry and that her philosophy was totally
flawed. She was and remains a binary figure who splits opinion down the
middle.
.
Similarly Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks had British Polictians
paid more attention to Winson Churchill in the 1930's Ubfortunately by that
stage Chiurchill was already a binary figure - most Condervatives regarded
him as a disloyal over ambitious windbag with very poor judgement.
It was only his personal friends among politicians who had any time for him.

He was only chosen as the new PM because all the other candidates
were proven non-binary wafflers who'd run out of ideas..

And I can assure you that had Churchill not been pretty "binary" in June 1940 in his
attitude towards Hilter in resisting the entreaties of the Italian Ambassador
while its not exactly a case that you'd be speaking German right now, but things
would certainly have worked out differently.


michael adams


I'd credit both Thatcher and Churchill with persistence

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/274...of-persistence

They both did what they thought they had to do, and *they succeeded*.
Sure, there are still those who blame Thatcher for a lot, but no amount
of nostalgia changes the fact that steel, shipbuilding, and even coal
had run their time in the UK. And the British car industry needed a huge
boot up the arse by the 70's.

I don't believe Johnson is remotely in the same league as those two.
Able people don't need to demand loyalty oaths, and they don't sack able
dissenters, they find ways to keep them on board.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/08/2020 10:07, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
.. .
On 19/08/2020 20:20, michael adams wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

Why does everything have to be binary? Is it some pervasive consequence of having a
digital world?

The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and Mao,

So that for you, with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao it's not an open and shut case then ?

Unlike "binary" people who condemn them out of hand, for you they also had their
good
points.

Which then raises the question as to why you chose them as an example in the first
place.

Does it not ?


michael adams

...


I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same same way as
Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They successfully sold a single big
lie.

Mussolini might have been a better example than Stalin. They probably all had some
good
points, but their standing in history really does not look very good. I think it is
unlikely that this will ever be substantially reversed.

I'm sorry I'm stil not sure why you chose those examples or exactly what
point you're trying to make.

The biggest example of a binary thinker in politics in recent times is undoubtedly
Margaret Thatcher. As far as she was concerned, you were either for her or you were
against her. This is exactly what Margaret Thatchers supporters admired her
for and still do, She had dehfinite opinions and had no time for the waffkers who
they claim had allowed Britain to drift into the mess it became.
Other people claim she wrecked British industry and that her philosophy was totally
flawed. She was and remains a binary figure who splits opinion down the
middle.
.
Similarly Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks had British Polictians
paid more attention to Winson Churchill in the 1930's Ubfortunately by that
stage Chiurchill was already a binary figure - most Condervatives regarded
him as a disloyal over ambitious windbag with very poor judgement.
It was only his personal friends among politicians who had any time for him.

He was only chosen as the new PM because all the other candidates
were proven non-binary wafflers who'd run out of ideas..

And I can assure you that had Churchill not been pretty "binary" in June 1940 in his
attitude towards Hilter in resisting the entreaties of the Italian Ambassador
while its not exactly a case that you'd be speaking German right now, but things
would certainly have worked out differently.


michael adams

I'd credit both Thatcher and Churchill with persistence

But we're not talking about persistance are we ?

We're talking about a binary view. Now as it happens my original suggestion
that you either view Covid9 as a disaster or a hoax is perfectly valid in
the context of deciding whether you want to go for a check up with a dentist
who you know takes inadequate precautions.

In that situation while your observation that "the truth lies somewhere in
between" may be perfectly true, it isn't much use in deciding what to do in
that situation is it ?

That was my point.

As to your list of politicians

" The trouble with the binary view is that it gave us Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao, and it gives us Trump and Johnson now

The reason Hitler was so successful was simply because the European powers
notably France and England couldn't agree amongst themselves as what to do
about him. Along with the fact that his binary views also appealed to a
large number of Germans, don't forget. Stalin only got where he was
through his mastery of committees, coupled with a paranoia that kept him
on his toes.
Mao led the Long March which established the Communist Chinese State and it
was this rather than any particularly binary views he may have held which
assured his status.
Both Trump and Johnson were elected\chosen because they were television
personalities who were known to the voters before becoming politicians,
Trump also appealed to voters with somewhat binary views on immigration and
foreigners generally.
As to Johnson he's a totally unscrupulous clown who was chosen as leader by
the Tories simply on the basis of his ability to win elections based on his
TV personality and hang the consequences. The fact that Johnson has fallen
victim to creatures like the equally unscrupulous Cummings should come
as no surprise to anyone.

Johnson has no place in any discussion of binary views
whatsoever.

Churchill was so binary that he not already done so, he would have thrown away
the 45 election by likening an incoming Labour Govt (led by his faithful wartime
deputy) to the Gestapo, in a speech. Thatcher was so binary that she dissed members
of her own Govt as "wets" and made sure it got into the papers courtesy of Bernard
Ingham.


michael adams

....

On 20/08/2020 14:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:54:09 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 08:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:

On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:

or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand .
. . er, well, um.

None of it is verifiable or replicable. To do those things, you need
to be able to alter the conditions artificially and observe the
effects, thereby gathering information that either supports or
invalidates the hypothesis. That does not happen and cannot happen
with climate science. The only variable available is CO2
concentration, and that can only be increased, not decreased. The
results of increasing it are not reflected in the actual global
temperatures, i.e. the models don't give results that agree with
reality. Ergo, the models are wrong.

Exactly.
Graph of global temperature starts rising post 1970, stops rising around
2000.
CO2 starts rising around 1970, does *not* stop rising after 2000.
Conclusion,. Global warming has almost nothing to do with CO2




--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 20/08/2020 20:29, newshound wrote:
On 20/08/2020 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/2020 09:33, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:17:10 UTC+1, newshoundÂ* wrote:
I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the same
same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists. They
successfully sold a single big lie.

I credit Johnson with more than a single lie.

Trump: less lie, more fantasy.

Owain

Biggest liar was of course Blair


Not even in the also rans
I see you are in de Nile.


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:00 +0100, newshound wrote:

On 20/08/2020 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/2020 09:33, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 09:17:10 UTC+1, newshoundÂ* wrote:
I pick them as examples because they came to power in broadly the
same same way as Johnson, Trump, and the other current populists.
They successfully sold a single big lie.

I credit Johnson with more than a single lie.

Trump: less lie, more fantasy.

Owain

Biggest liar was of course Blair


Not even in the also rans

Corbyn didn't lie much.

But that's because he was so ineffectual he didn't do or say much. His
greatest achievement (for his masters) was losing the election so
convincingly.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 20/08/2020 13:28, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Aug 2020 at 09:54:09 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 08:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:

On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:

or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand .
. . er, well, um.

Now you're being witty. Ever thought of the stage? And what verifiable and
replicable science would that be, then?

Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals.

The debate appears to be informed by
models, and we've seen how good models can be over the last few months.


Hadn't noticed. Which models have failed to meet your expectations now?

--
Cheers, Rob

On Friday, 21 August 2020 09:10:14 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 20/08/2020 13:28, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Aug 2020 at 09:54:09 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand

wrote:
not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

#Paul

On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

#Paul

listed:

Quantifying configurational information for a stochastic particle in a flow-field

Theoretical design of mid-infrared interband cascade lasers in SiGeSn system

Anomalous magnetoresistance in centrosymmetric skyrmion-lattice magnet Gd2PdSi3

Polarization control of radiation and energy flow in dipole-coupled nanorings

Scaling laws for direct laser acceleration in a radiation-reaction dominated regime

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.


NT

On 21/08/2020 5:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/2020 14:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:54:09 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 08:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2020 06:56, jon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:38:49 +0100, williamwright wrote:

On 18/08/2020 23:06, michael adams wrote:

or the greatest ever hoax and/or load of bulll****.

No, that's global warming.

Bill

Yup

+1001

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg


Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand .
. . er, well, um.

None of it is verifiable or replicable. To do those things, you need
to be able to alter the conditions artificially and observe the
effects, thereby gathering information that either supports or
invalidates the hypothesis. That does not happen and cannot happen
with climate science. The only variable available is CO2
concentration, and that can only be increased, not decreased. The
results of increasing it are not reflected in the actual global
temperatures, i.e. the models don't give results that agree with
reality. Ergo, the models are wrong.

Exactly.
Graph of global temperature starts rising post 1970, stops rising around
2000.
CO2 starts rising around 1970, does *not* stop rising after 2000.
Conclusion,. Global warming has almost nothing to do with CO2




20,00 years ago the seas were 400ft lower due to ice build up. 1970?

On 20/08/2020 19:51, wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 19:38:20 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 19/08/2020 20:23, Tim+ wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Private practice in medicine has a long history/tradition of cutting
corners/costs to increase profits at the expense of patient safety. I
doubt dentistry is any different.

Its precisely the opposite. Private medicine often funded by insurance is what drives
a lot of research into new medicines and treatments,

I presume youve worked for the NHS and worked in private hospitals?

Neither system is perfect but corner cutting occurs in both systems. In the
NHS though there is probably more overview and regulation. In the private
sector you can get away with murder, sometimes literally.

Tim


And the NHS too. And the consultants and hospital administrators
then make it as difficult as possible to get to the truth.


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-21/...ligence-claims

what does this tell you ?.

It says €œWe are now awarding compensation in sums of money higher than almost anywhere in the world. What we need is a fundamental change to the legal system.€�

No, what we need is a fundamental change in the NHS. They will keep being sued until they wake up & reform.


NT


+1

On 21 Aug 2020 at 10:02:39 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 21 Aug 2020 at 09:10:11 BST, RJH wrote:

On 20/08/2020 13:28, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Aug 2020 at 09:54:09 BST, RJH wrote:

On 19/08/2020 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Aug 2020 at 10:48:34 BST, RJH wrote:

I'd save those +s for something else.

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks €˜ignorance
and unawareness


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/19/another-two-years-lost-to-climate-inaction-says-greta-thunberg

Oh dear, not another acolyte of St Greta, I hope.

At least her views are informed by verifiable and replicable science.
And on those views, she does something about it. You on the other hand .
. . er, well, um.

Now you're being witty. Ever thought of the stage? And what verifiable and
replicable science would that be, then?

Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals.

The output of models is not science.

It is, insofar as it's systematic study - much more than reporting output.
Journal articles tend to involve description, analysis and critique. Or do you
have your own definition of science? But I accept that you don't think it's
not good science. Or, rather, you know that it is wrong.

Neither am I impressed by "peer-reviewed"
when those peer-reviewers are in the same field. Let these papers and the
research be examined by scientists outside that field, by people of the
stature of Feynman and Hoyle, and I might pay more attention. Sadly these two
are no longer with us.

Well, they'd hardly be peers if it was reviewed by people outside the field.
But I accept that you think it's the best way to review research. You in turn
would accept that that sounds bonkers to most people?


The debate appears to be informed by
models, and we've seen how good models can be over the last few months.

Hadn't noticed. Which models have failed to meet your expectations now?

Those making the predictions about the course of the pandemic. Interesting
that we've heard nothing about these models for some time now. Perhaps that's
since they got roundly pasted.

The only ones to take notice of, IMO, are epidemiologists. All their
predictions I've seen have been 'don't know, depends'. But then if you don't
value the opinion of experts, who are you left with?

If you get a moment, watch this week's Click. It has a piece on a carbon
capture. It goes without saying you know the academic is wrong in pretty much
everything covered in the review. What, then, do you think motivated his
life's work?

--
Cheers, Rob

wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

listed: [...]

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike
me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.

You said "the great majority of Peer reviewed science in leading
scientific journals", a statement that you did not constrain to
apply only within your expertise, or to within a "green agenda".
So, I could repeat:

Pick any paper you like, and tell us the reasons why it is
"bunk". Better yet, write them up properly and submit a
Comment to the journal itself.

However, like a number of people here, you talk big about "peer
reviewed science", but utterly fail to actually engage with any of
it on any meaningful level. The failure is so persistent, and so
pronounced, that I presume you imagine that others somehow do not
notice, and will be taken in by your assertions.


#Paul

On Saturday, 22 August 2020 15:32:06 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

listed: [...]

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike
me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.

You said "the great majority of Peer reviewed science in leading
scientific journals", a statement that you did not constrain to
apply only within your expertise, or to within a "green agenda".
So, I could repeat:

Pick any paper you like, and tell us the reasons why it is
"bunk". Better yet, write them up properly and submit a
Comment to the journal itself.

However, like a number of people here, you talk big about "peer
reviewed science", but utterly fail to actually engage with any of
it on any meaningful level. The failure is so persistent, and so
pronounced, that I presume you imagine that others somehow do not
notice, and will be taken in by your assertions.


#Paul

Lol. If you get the first clue what's going on let us know. Until there is no point engaging with you.

For anyone with a functioning brain cell:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124


NT