leicsmac

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.

I can certainly understand the frustration faced when people think anecdotes trump scientific data And if a worker is at least mostly as productive while doing so, an employer should offer that right IMO.

Really. I mean, is there anyone with a modicum of awareness of the topic who doesn't know where that train of thought terminates?

This. And as if productivity by itself without considering how the welfare of workers affects it is the sole (or even most important) arbiter of the success of a business anyway.

On his daughters’ response, [Sunak] said it was “absolutely wrong” to describe what he was doing as “watering down” climate targets. “Our commitment to net zero… remains.” Again, prove it quantitatively rather than just saying it as if it's true, please. NB. At least he's overstepped the NIMBY's and scrapped the ban on onshore wind farms and is (slowly) starting the ball rolling on fission plants.

Yeah, it's an obvious ploy for the upcoming election. It's ridiculous and counterproductive for the reasons stated earlier in this thread, of course.

If its any consolation, the laws of thermodynamics will see right through it. And punish it.

Vested interests making too much off renting office space.

I'm curious, is the opinion here that both the sharp increase in carbon emissions since the start of the real industrial revolution and the commensurate increase in global average temperature alongside it is (mostly) coincidental and natural, then?

I have no reason to doubt your observations regarding the heating industry and what they think of the targets that were set and how unrealistic they think they are - and they should know. However, the big thing is that the Earth may well not offer the UK (or everywhere else) the time for a more "realistic" transition. And it has the casting vote, if what it can do in terms of flooding, drought, famine and general misery (as well as the very human response when things get tough) is anything to go by. Solutions need to be applied, rapidly, and both industry and government need to work together to get them to be effective. NB. Sunak says that these changes will not have an effect on the UK achieving net zero carbon emissions by the set targets. I'd like him to explain and prove this quantitatively rather than offering soundbites.

I can see where you're coming from here, but quite frankly the softly-softly approach has been tried by the scientific community for the last three decades (at least) and what we have to show for it is where we are - not enough. So people in the know are beginning to get a little bit frayed, and are beginning to frame things in terms of accountability if things go wrong as well as what can be done to stop them from getting to that stage. I'd agree that the latter framing would be nicer, but once again: where has nice got us to up until now? Of course, the stick rather than the carrot may not produce the required action either, but I can certainly understand why people who have been pointing out a clear and obvious threat to human civilisation for a very long time are, as it is beginning to make itself felt in earnest, losing patience. NB. The contributions of human industrial activity from the early to mid 1800's to the present day have had a massively significant effect on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and commensurate average temperature increase. The specific policies might well be viewed to be nonsensical. The issue they seek to address, and more importantly the consequences of not taking it seriously, most certainly isn't. Folks might want to parse the difference.