Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by monicabilongame, Sep 17, 2020.
Is there any reason all this work wasn't done in house by Department of Heath employees?
Yes. The government didn't want to give the NHS the funds to do the job professionally, prefering as it did to give backhanders to its sponsors. If you have any more quiz questions, could you take the effort to make them a bit more challenging please?
Deloitte had to try to make money to cover their fine.
I did say the Department of Health. Nevertheless, does the nhs have the capacity/capability to manufacture testing kits?
Not anymore than they manufacture pharmaceuticals, and other purchased items like glucose testing kits... etc... so on and so forth I would imagine.
There is a myth that growing a monopolistic public sector is better than buying in certain goods from plc's or ltd's, I'm not sure where it comes from but it is interesting, especially as public works has not really had a broad appeal since Keynes first wrote the General Theory.
Perhaps they have an central HR department that could have recruited and trained 25,000 tracers and people to build the IT infrastructure?
You do know that for example every time you use the .gov website you are using an Amazon sub contracted facility/subsidiary... their reach is far more wide reaching than delivering items ordered online to your door.
That's a silly question to ask if you don't expect a reply asking whether those who got the contracts have the capacity/capabilitity to manufacture testing kits.
We had this conversation many years ago, Madge, when I argued that it was ridiculous that the NHS had to pay through the nose for expensive drugs and consumables when an organisation of that size could save a fortune if it had in house manufacturing facilities to do it.
Your answer back then was along the lines that it would never be able to compete with the private sector. Now that we've had a chance to see how poorly the private sector is performing, do you remain as certain as you once were that the NHS couldn't do better in house?
Either way there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So why haven't they built a plant to manufacture generics in the last 60 years?
Unless you have a controlled experiment to assess the performance of private vs public sector provision there's no real way to know for sure who on balance would perform better, that is probably why we still have something of a mixed economy. I like the mixed economy and would not want to live in a State where the government owned and controlled all business activity... but thats just me... or is it?
Not cost effective, big pharma can do so on a global scale and thus benefit from huge EOS and still cover their costs and provide an acceptable profit margin for their investors.
I doubt they would have done better on track and trace. A centralised system is part of the failure and the nhs is a slow leviathan. Stuff you cant do yourself, you contract out.
As an aside I wonder how those countries who's Governments invested in our rail industry are fairing now demand has fallen due to factors outside anyones control.
Who's Madge? I've been posting a while and never got that.
It's too twisted for anything other than An Enquiry to sort it out.
It's too late for me to seek out a gif.
I agree but unless there's hard evidence of wrong doing to instigate an enquiry why waste money to simply cry over spilt milk, there are far more pressing social issues that funding could be used for.
Amazon hosts cloud services and data farms for the US intelligence services on a grand scale.