Print

Print


Thanks Frank. Brain Jarman (Dr Foster) is another good guy. I said he should 
be doing his thing in realtime. He said he was. If you can call once a month 
and an annual report real time- so I  gently corrected him. Point is a 
doctor logs in for his shift and he is told one of his patients has MRSA and 
has been isolated. We're up and running and anybody anywhere wanting to know 
how many MRSA cases there are today can easily find out. It's the secrecy 
that allows these things to go unchallenged. My Liverpool friend's son with 
MRSA was put into a five person room with transplant patients! is that 
criminal? The age at which a given doctor's patients dies might be a good 
indicator of the doctor and the procedures applied. GP's have about 8 deaths 
a year and hospital doctors (because there are so many of them and about 
half deaths are in hospital) about 3. Of course it's skewed because junior 
doctors do all the routine stuff. But what do they actually do? Add in a 
couple of out-patient clinics per week 2-3 hours each. And then 5-10 minutes 
with his 2.5 the bed patients each day. In actual fact you could have a 
couple of doctors on a ward all the time- except that might lead to 
excessive interventions- recall the doctors who went on strike and the death 
rate went down.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/320/7249/1561

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Wood" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:30 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years ($2.50 causes ***in hospitals***)

> Excellent website Nick. I've bookmarked it in my action folder.
>
> Maybe someone should set up a Rakontu site to catalogue horror stories 
> from the NHS.
>
> Frank
>
> On 29 Nov 2009, at 21:05, Nick Green wrote:
>
>> Yes Frank I'm afraid a few criminal prosecutions are long overdue. 
>> Indeed a couple of years ago I sat briefly on a local police liaison 
>> board. I told the Chief Super there was more grave crime committed  in 
>> Hospitals than in the High Street (Camden). He harrumphed and  muttered 
>> something about it being a matter for the Home Office.  Anyway a few 
>> weeks later his opposite number in Islington (a nearby  London Borough) 
>> did an "executive life swap" for a week with the  head of a large 
>> hospital trust- so there may be some hope. I'd say  the police here are 
>> well aware of what is going on but it needs a  nice open and shut case to 
>> turn things round. But we must continue  to press for reform here. A few 
>> years ago I did this website which  attempted to alert people to these 
>> problems. http:// www.ppif.org.uk/. VSM long overdue here.
>>
>> We're a long way from being able to sign up to any euthanasia  program 
>> with any confidence.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> N.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Frank Wood" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:05 PM
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years ($2.50 causes ***in hospitals***)
>>
>>> I'm glad, Nick, you've highlighted the myth of the overworked  hospital 
>>> doctor.
>>>
>>> I had a friend who said that when they work "long hours" much of  that 
>>> time they spend sleeping in their  bunks at the hospital as  they are 
>>> paid to be on standby. Nothing wrong with that but we are  fed the 
>>> nonsense that they are over worked. Ditto for nurses and  supporting 
>>> staff if your calculations are right.
>>>
>>> I have listened to horror stories from people who have visited 
>>> hopsitals to see patients. It's not overwork that's causing the 
>>> errors, it's a "couldn't give a damn" attitude. Again we're fed  with 
>>> the image of nurses as angels. Sure there are some good ones  but the 
>>> ones I observe are patronising at best and almost  downright evil at 
>>> worst.
>>>
>>> A friend of mine fell (their story) when she attempted to get off  the 
>>> toilet. They found her unconscious on the floor. We don't know  how 
>>> long she was there for and we don't know if that fall hastened  her 
>>> death a few days later.
>>>
>>> I've heard from friends and relatives of two cases where charts  were 
>>> left on the wrong beds.
>>>
>>> If these people were sent to jail then they might start caring and 
>>> doing the job they are paid to do.
>>>
>>> On the railways you only have to endanger life to risk getting a  jail 
>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2009, at 15:10, Nick Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right yes, Luc, a rather poor joke by me. You can see Latour 
>>>> modernity by-passed in, of all things, medicine.
>>>>
>>>> In UK news today there's a text book example of the irresponsible 
>>>> science- politics nexus from the basically unaccountable National 
>>>> Health Service. Unaccountable because error rates have no formal 
>>>> controls and were barely counted at all until recently. Reporting  of 
>>>> errors by anybody is resisted rather than welcomed as vital  feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Some years ago Sir Brian Jarman (ex Chairman of British Medical 
>>>> Association- the Doctors trade union) realised that people die in 
>>>> hospital for the wrong reasons. His analysis of patient risk and 
>>>> viability bears some study. He addresses preventable errors (e.g. 
>>>> Poor nursing care, misdiagnosis, filthy wards producing  unnecessary 
>>>> deaths) in UK hospitals. Learned references are given  at the  Imperial 
>>>> College site.
>>>>
>>>> BBC Reports
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/29/nhs-hospitals-safety-report
>>>> Dr Foster website
>>>> http://www.drfosterintelligence.co.uk/
>>>> University base
>>>> http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/about/divisions/ephpc/pcsm/research/drfosters/
>>>>
>>>> Usual story: ghastly bureaucrats with no incentive for quality  doing 
>>>> fuck all or nothing as we say in polite society. Add in the  elite: 
>>>> surgeons who by and large won't work at weekends,  on  Fridays or 
>>>> Wednesday afternoons.
>>>>
>>>> The name Dr Foster ( a character who avoids unpleasantness) comes 
>>>> from the children's nursery rhyme. As a word "foster" means nurture.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Foster
>>>>
>>>> The NHS is basically a low pay uneducated culture: in hospitals   about 
>>>> 75,000 autopoietic and underworked doctors are supported by   more than 
>>>> 1 million (mostly low pay) staff serving, at any one  time  about, 
>>>> 185,000 patients in a bed. That is an extraordinary  variety  equation. 
>>>> Fewer staff getting in each others way and more  hand  washing would be 
>>>> the "$2.50 relay" solution here. Far too  much  statistically naive 
>>>> (false positive rates are largely  unknown) time  wasting ritual 
>>>> bullshit that only the gullible can  believe survives  in UK's NHS -and 
>>>> elsewhere I wouldn't doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> N.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Luc Hoebeke
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:23 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years ($2.50 causes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Nick,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No missing vowel. In Serb and Croat languages this r is  pronounced  er 
>>>> as in her.
>>>> Having followed this thread, I learn how the old responsibility 
>>>> avoiding mechanism between Pope and Emperor has shifted towards 
>>>> Science and Politics. We never have been modern as Bruno Latour 
>>>> eloquently argues in his book with the same title.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op 29-nov-09, om 03:17 heeft Nick Green het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brklacic an imperfect clone of Stafford? The missing vowel in his 
>>>> name surely proves this. Anyway New Scientist went with this  saying 
>>>> this week "Climate researchers have been inundated with  what feels 
>>>> like malicious demands for their data" Why aren't the  data 
>>>> downloadable and come to that how about a listing of their  program - 
>>>> like the Meadows etc did with Limits to Growth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: russell_c
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:53 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years ($2.50 causes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just when you thought is was safe to believe the simple story:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hacked climate change email furore" -- Hacked climate change 
>>>> emails  - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to 
>>>> Michael  Brklacic, November 28, 2009.
>>>>
>>>> http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4533
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, at the end, "... don't latch on to one or two pieces of 
>>>> [$2.50] evidence ...", hmmmm?
>>>>
>>>> rc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Doug McDavid  <[log in to unmask]
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This thread alone is worth the price of admission!  Great stuff!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Frank Wood <[log in to unmask]
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Ha ha, love the "marginal seat theory!" Where on earth did we  get 
>>>>> the idea
>>>>> that we humans are rational beings!
>>>>> Yeh, we're extremely rational in the context of greed and power  and 
>>>>> the
>>>>> notion of power extends to the "I'm right and you're wrong" 
>>>>> attitude. That
>>>>> is why your carefully balanced approach is the way to go.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Frank
>>>>> On 28 Nov 2009, at 12:12, russell_c wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Frank,
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and yes, there is that zeal is creeping in, and  unfortunately, 
>>>>> many
>>>>> opportunists can smell a "win" ... and that will surely attract  the 
>>>>> "lovers
>>>>> of winning" ... and so, off we go on another round of tail  chasing. 
>>>>> It's not
>>>>> that they are completely wrong, just not completely right, and the
>>>>> simplicity of over self confidence is always a concern. One step 
>>>>> closer to
>>>>> blind fundamentalism?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and thanks for the agricultural angle. Guess what: not only  is 
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> not responsible for the coal based greenhouse gasses that China 
>>>>> produces
>>>>> from burning the stuff we export to them; but also the farming   lobby 
>>>>> here
>>>>> has successfully managed to get exclusions from the emissions 
>>>>> trading system
>>>>> being proposed! It is called "marginal seat theory" I think! (see:
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/ 
>>>>> 0,23739,26350929-953,00.html )
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we know there are a lot of sheep (and cattle) down here, and 
>>>>> some even
>>>>> have learned to walk on two legs, and vote, but this type of  partial
>>>>> partisan response will just distort the whole by over weighting  the 
>>>>> load on
>>>>> those other parts that cannot afford the right lobbyists.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have nailed it here imo -- "... develop sustainable  societies 
>>>>> that
>>>>> effectively respond". Unfortunately, while economics theory and 
>>>>> praxis
>>>>> cannot operate outside/beyond the "Growth" paradigm, we will  just 
>>>>> have to
>>>>> communicate in that weird language that growing small is not 
>>>>> shrinking!
>>>>> Pulling out is not surrendering, stopping is not failing, etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mind numbing! So, surely, one of the functions of groups like  this is
>>>>> ensuring that we can see more clearly through what is happening and
>>>>> communicate with others as Margaret Mead implied:
>>>>>
>>>>> I specifically want to consider the significance of the set of
>>>>> cross-disciplinary ideas which we first called 'feed-back' and  then 
>>>>> called
>>>>> 'teleological mechanisms' and then called 'cybernetics' -- a form  of
>>>>> cross-disciplinary thought which made it possible for members of  many
>>>>> disciplines to communicate with each other easily in a language 
>>>>> which all
>>>>> could understand. (cited in
>>>>> http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/foerster.html )
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately reasonable climate science speculation (e.g.  Lovelock 
>>>>> et al)
>>>>> is being used for partisan corporate politics and unsustainable 
>>>>> policy
>>>>> implementation! BAU I'm afraid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Russell
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s.  Oh, BTW, the other $2.50 cause is the 80% of CO2 human  activity
>>>>> systems living on less than $2.50 per day! And as mobile phone 
>>>>> penetration
>>>>> heads into the exponential in developing economies (e.g. see   various 
>>>>> World
>>>>> Bank reports) we will see more awareness of the differentials 
>>>>> between rich
>>>>> and poor ... and we may start to hear echos of those famous 17th  C 
>>>>> French
>>>>> words "Let them eat cake!".
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Frank Wood 
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great piece of writing Russell. The biting irony is that it is the
>>>>>> environmentalists that are the reductionists with their $2.50  relay
>>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>> There are so many vested interests on both sides of the debate   that 
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> genuine enquiry into what should be done gets lost.
>>>>>> To add to the complexity, I saw part of a TV programme a few  days 
>>>>>> ago (it
>>>>>> was to do with Obama's carbon reduction campaign) which said  that 
>>>>>> most of
>>>>>> the "greenhouse gas" was caused by food production.
>>>>>> Here is an article that lends support to this assertion.
>>>>>> Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving  cars,  UN 
>>>>>> report
>>>>>> warns
>>>>>> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
>>>>>> and another article on the proposed remedy.
>>>>>> 'Burpless' Grass Cuts Methane Gas From Cattle, May Help Reduce 
>>>>>> Global
>>>>>> Warming
>>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080506120859.htm
>>>>>> but here again dear old complexity rears its head again. And of 
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> there is the issue of gene modification. Oh dear.
>>>>>> We expect in our campaign to cut down CO2, that third world 
>>>>>> countries to
>>>>>> cut down or cease logging. Of course these countries see through  our
>>>>>> hypocrisy. Consider that the UK used to be almost covered in 
>>>>>> forests and
>>>>>> now....
>>>>>> I still think that we must develop sustainable societies that 
>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>> respond to climate change (whether it be warming or cooling)  and 
>>>>>> worry less
>>>>>> about Gaia as that old girl is going to do her own sweet thing 
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Nov 2009, at 00:55, russell_c wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re: $2.50 causes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I still don't know whether I fully 'get it' in respect to  this
>>>>>> example either. I came to a similar conclusion as yourself about  the
>>>>>> multiple causes -- with one additional aspect: it was also a 
>>>>>> comment about
>>>>>> reductionist ways of thinking in respect to complex problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the author was pointing to the phenomena of a whole 
>>>>>> organisational
>>>>>> system straining to get the simple answer as a cause. It (ie  those 
>>>>>> in it)
>>>>>> fears the looming circularity of deep systemic investigation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The $2.50 climate change cause 'issue' is said to be CO2, or 
>>>>>> 'carbon',
>>>>>> reflecting the escaping output sun rays/energy and thus  bouncing 
>>>>>> them back
>>>>>> to earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, as in all these things, the underlying  assumptions 
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>> often questioned. We assume that this heating phenomena is not  the 
>>>>>> Gaia
>>>>>> system (of which we, by definition, must be a significant  thinking 
>>>>>> part)
>>>>>> working in its own time scale to extend our happy modern  existence 
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> the next pending 10,000 year interglacial cold cycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can take that 1974 Time article and replace a few key words   and 
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have the same media-message being run today -- the sky will  fall, 
>>>>>> the crops
>>>>>> won't grow, the hens won't lay ... touching almost every deeply 
>>>>>> held often
>>>>>> neurotic fear we have as a society, culture and empire. So how  do 
>>>>>> we know
>>>>>> the truth? We cannot, and so acting on the precautionary  principle 
>>>>>> is the
>>>>>> best defense. But again, what to do, or not do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I'm really pointing to is the same phenomena that says bin 
>>>>>> Laden
>>>>>> caused the Twin Towers attack and not the red flag of US foreign 
>>>>>> policy etc.
>>>>>> It is the cultural/systemic blindness to the bigger systemic 
>>>>>> picture.(*) I
>>>>>> saw it as a comment on the way 'the system' works -- i.e. who  are 
>>>>>> the 'they'
>>>>>> that will find the cause? IMO, they are the believers in their own
>>>>>> confidences -- whatever side they take in a situation of  concern. 
>>>>>> As Frank
>>>>>> said: we need more humility by scientists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the rush is on. And so now it is not science and its quest  for 
>>>>>> truth
>>>>>> and answers: it is politics and its power games. But what else  can 
>>>>>> be done?
>>>>>> Adaptation is the secondary theme in the climate change debate  but 
>>>>>> it is not
>>>>>> much focused on by the media. Why? Because it means operating 
>>>>>> system change
>>>>>> (to use the computing analogy), not just program change. And  can  we 
>>>>>> trust
>>>>>> systems programmers? Who are they working for? I think the  elites 
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>> yet certain of where they can stand safely in the wash up, and  so 
>>>>>> things are
>>>>>> more complex than they need to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of CO2, why don't we start with population, blame the 
>>>>>> medical
>>>>>> sciences for stopping malaria, polio, plague, etc without also 
>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>> birth control and sustainable socio-economic reform? What about   the 
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> 'club of rome' that will not support birth control etc? We will 
>>>>>> willingly
>>>>>> look at plant food (CO2) as the enemy, but not the local doctor   who 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> working beyond his/her wellbeing limits, usually on a healthy   state 
>>>>>> subsidy,
>>>>>> to save CO2 producing humans (you & I) who should perhaps cease  this
>>>>>> function permanently. Where do we stop? A $2.50 cause is all we 
>>>>>> need to stop
>>>>>> the process of systemic change occurring naturally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One opportunity all this offers is a wide window on science  studies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Russell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (*) BTW, on my way out the door yesterday (c.o.b. Friday) a  young 
>>>>>> lady
>>>>>> came running past straight from a 1-day management guru seminar  by 
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> professor x, and showed me a slide that said tomorrows leaders   will 
>>>>>> need,
>>>>>> guess what, yes, "systems thinking". Oh, dear, here we go again!  I 
>>>>>> responded
>>>>>> that it will drive them mad if they try, and that imo  leadership  is 
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> 'yesterday', as is management -- and that we are entering a  heroic 
>>>>>> stage.
>>>>>> G-d help us!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Nick Green 
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Russell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re your previous on the $2.50 relay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Stafford and Gordon emphasised multiple causes. So why  did 
>>>>>>> the relay
>>>>>>> fail etc.  I have to say I didn't really "get it" at first   because 
>>>>>>> like any
>>>>>>> other operational Joe I would go to stores and replace the  relay 
>>>>>>> job done.
>>>>>>> But Pask and Beer wanted to look at how the relay was designed, 
>>>>>>> managed etc
>>>>>>> I eventually concluded. One can be very thick sometimes.  Pask 
>>>>>>> preferred
>>>>>>> "produces" rather than "causes". It's that circular causality 
>>>>>>> problem again,
>>>>>>> Does the spark cause the explosion or the presence of petrol 
>>>>>>> vapour. We know
>>>>>>> the product of spark, petrol vapour and oxygen is an explosion   but 
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> no single cause. Connect a bulb to a battery. Go away. Come  back, 
>>>>>>> The bulb
>>>>>>> is out. Why? There's no way of telling until each component is 
>>>>>>> tested in
>>>>>>> another trusted circular system: the bulb, the 4 connections,  the 
>>>>>>> 2 leads,
>>>>>>> the battery. All this means something for Climate change etc-  not 
>>>>>>> sure quite
>>>>>>> what-yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: russell_c
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 10:25 AM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years (CSIRAC)
>>>>>>> If anyone is interested in this CSIRO 'report card' released   today 
>>>>>>> (27th)
>>>>>>> then see:
>>>>>>> http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Marine-report-card.html and
>>>>>>> http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/site/ 
>>>>>>> welcome/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, russell_c <[log in to unmask]> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure this is on topic, but this CSIRAC story (below)  came
>>>>>>>> through today and caused me to reflect on a comment (by  Staford  I 
>>>>>>>> think?)
>>>>>>>> that "they will find the cause" to a major US power outage (a 
>>>>>>>> $2.50 relay?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why are we blaming climate change causes on CO2 when the energy
>>>>>>>> increases have a lot to do with the complexities related to   power 
>>>>>>>> station
>>>>>>>> upgrades needed for PC proliferation, building air- conditioning 
>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>> increases, flat plasma screens and additional housing demand  due 
>>>>>>>> to family
>>>>>>>> break down etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In respect to heat and power production -- are there any 
>>>>>>>> estimates of
>>>>>>>> the energy generation involved in the growth of ICT and  Internet 
>>>>>>>> over the 60
>>>>>>>> years from when this machine came to be? (there is a picture   with 
>>>>>>>> the story)
>>>>>>>>
>>>> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~