leicsmac

Way to give the Putin apologist wingnuts who go on about "Nazis" ammunition, guys.

Yeah, would be the equivalent of 150bn on one line that takes 30 years to complete, goes from Seoul to Daejeon (or maybe Daegu) only and then gets abandoned despite promising lines to Mokpo and Busan. Rather embarrassing all round really.

Yes it is. Or just an elaborate stone carving project.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-66881285 The sample taken from the asteroid Bennu has landed and has been recovered safely. Should be interesting to see what we find out from it!

That would be a good first step, yeah. But the infrastructure does need updating - I look at where I've just left in terms of trains and then at what the UK (a similar sized nation) is (not) doing and the gap is actually laughable.

Honestly, when it comes to both public transport infrastructure projects and entirely necessary energy and environmental policy, other countries that might be considered peers of the UK make it look rather silly. So yes, change of government please.

Expecting any American golfer to have any kind of thick skin is your first mistake here, Izzy.

Been intense stuff. A fair few errors and some poor decision making from both teams, but that's likely because of the intensity.

I suppose I can see why it would appear that way, but allow me to be clear and restate what I have said a few times: I'm very welcome to the idea of restructure, or even root and branch reform if necessary, but it cannot come at the cost of affecting any services at all that would affect the poorest and most vulnerable, which is why such a change would have to be very carefully planned and executed. Oddly enough, my feelings on this particular matter and on climate change as you mention align for pretty much the same reason: people (possibly) seeking to condemn a large amount of other people (and possiby themselves), either through ignorance or malice, for the sake of short term material gain and self interest. That's not only immoral for me, it's also horribly irrational.

And as per above, if someone were to present a plan based on actual empirical evidence that would prove this, and make things more efficient while maintaining the fundamental reasoning behind the NHS - to preserve life and health - then I would welcome it. I'm sorry, but again this is a lot of looking at the problem and not much applying a solution that could be shown to ensure that people don't get left behind. As per above, I think a lot of folks are OK with making the system more efficient, they're just worried - rightly so IMO - with such reform ending in a system where the poor or the unfortunate end up suffering and dying as happens in so many places around the world.

This is an example, I think. Apologies for pointing it out directly. If there is a proven way to make the system better and more efficient without causing risk to people's lives and health then I (and many other people, I suspect) would be all ears.

Yeah, the inefficiency is a matter of record. However, again, in the absence of a perfect solution (which won't be found), much better this inefficiency than more efficiency and people not getting the care they need because they either can't afford it or the system itself cannot afford it. I'm not sure why some folks appear to overlook that and just look at the bottom line.

It does apply perfectly, I think. I've also seen, directly, the damage it does in other nations with healthcare systems that reflect it more.

Precisely. Which is why any reform must be viewed and carried out with the utmost caution, scepticism and oversight.

As there should be when you're dealing with something (human life and suffering) that in principle and practice should be above material value. What use is money to a sick or dead person?

People simply don't trust this current government to reform the NHS without making it the system I refer to above IMO, and I also think they are right to think this. There are those in power at the minute who think that a social Darwinist worldview where the "weak" or "poor" are abandoned to their fate is acceptable. There's certainly room to make such services be more efficient, but I don't think it's controversial to state that the priority of the NHS should be preserving human life and comfort, regardless of cost.

Were that overhaul to be proposed with the binding guarantee that the current model of a baseline of medical case regardless of financial status were to remain, then people should perhaps listen. ... is there such a guarantee when some people talk about NHS "reform" or "overhaul", or is it just a smokescreen for a change to a system where it's be rich and be OK...or be poor and suffer and die (or instead be attached to a lifetime of debt)?

Maybe. Or perhaps it won't. I'm prepared to bet there is a whole load of such offences that have gone unreported and undisclosed for a long time, because of the sensitive nature of them and the difficulty to obtaining truly actionable evidence. Still, I guess that's the price for the justice system we have and it's the way it should be. However, as others have pointed out, social consequences are a rather different sphere to that with a different burden of proof, and that's the way that should be too.

Compared to cicadas, certainly. And those bastards really make some noise in the summer time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66879093 Eight-year-old Aditi Shankar has become the first child in the UK to receive a special type of kidney transplant that does not require her to take long-term drugs to stop rejection of the organ. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital say the breakthrough was made possible by reprogramming her immune system before giving her the new kidney. To do that, they used bone-marrow stem cells from the donor - Aditi's mother. Another brilliant landmark in medical science. Imagine where we might be in a few decades.

And they still haven't explained quantitatively how this latest raft of measures would still make sure the UK adheres to its commitments to the world and the future anyway. It's all soundbites. But I guess that's to be expected.

Poland know that if that happens Article 5 gets triggered and the world burns with them, so they know it won't happen. So they obviously feel they have some flexibility on this matter. Doesn't stop it being really not morally square, though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66867679 A good breakdown. The last couple of sentences especially pertinent: "Many scientists have pointed out to the BBC that delaying investment simply increases the ultimate cost. And of course, the global costs of climate inaction would be much higher, as the world would be hit by increasingly damaging climate impacts."

Reform UK even more ignorant of the future (or simply malicious enough to not give a shit about it) than the current UK administration then.

Exactly. And so workplaces need to be flexible enough to accommodate all of this for best productivity, if indeed that is what they really want.