It’s mad, isn’t it?
Jane, this is exactly what i said. UK manufacturers are producing and exporting because the jobsworth in the MHRA are polishing their chairs and hiding behind rules and regulations and delaying the approvals, for what ever reason. Normally to get on the approved list can take upto 3 months or even more under normal circumstances. Under the present circumstances, this should be waivered and the NHS has access to any UK manufacturer who can deliver. I have always had a big grudge against the willies in power within the NHS who have no idea about medicine, but they know the politics of lining their pockets, whilst those who slog on day in day out suffer, and are now losing their lives. Rant over sorry folks.
1 Like
OTOH this story could make it a certainty
I think that everybody is entitled to rant. Especially those poor families that have lost hospital staff to this virus.
We deserve better from this government and from civil? servants who seem to be more concerned with applying the rules than saving lives.
With a bit of luck the voting public will now realise what a lying bunch they are, also, sorry, but in relation to Brexit too.
Claims today that the 100k figure was, like so many others, simply plucked out of the air. And a truly slope shouldered performance from Minister Simon Clark on Today programme this morning. Think we were better off when they were boycotting the BBC: now I’m feeling patronised and thought to be stupid all over again.
This not news. It’s well known that the PCR antigen test is very specific so if it tests positive you really do have the virus but it’s not very sensitive as there are up to 30% false negatives (possibly partly due to swabbing technique). That’s why the idea is nonsense that if NHS workers are self-isolating that they can return to work if they test negative. A minimum of two negative tests is necessary.
Nigel - I’m aware that this is “not news” to most doctors - in fact the guidelines are clear that if you have a high clinical suspicion that a patient has Covid you should continue to treat them as such, even in the face of a negative test. The specificity is better but it is still not 100% (i.e false positives can and do occur) but I can’t find a figure for the current test.
However, the reason that I said that it could sink Hancock is more to do with the timing and how the media handle the story than the science - especially the accusation that the test in use in the UK is significantly worse than that available elsewhere.
1 Like
And what is wrong with an arts degree? After all Benazir Bhutto did rather well, and her degree was arts. So this is a bit of a bigoted statement.
And I don’t think there is a single current government minister who has an arts degree. They are pillocks admittedly, bit mainly studied law, PPE, economics, agriculture and one has a chemistry doctorate. Throw out as many slurs as you like about politicians, but please be factual.
2 Likes
They almost all do, PPE being especially “popular” - though I’m not sure if you meant that they all had science qualifications or that you would be surprised to find that any of them had any form of university level education.
Johnson - PPE (more arts than science - and leads to a BA which clinches it)
Sunak - PPE
Raab - jurisprudence (BA)
Patel - surprisingly, economics (but not clear if BA or BSc), then Government and Politics
Gove - English (BA)
Buckland - Law (generally not regarded as a science)
Wallace - no tertiary qualification
Hancock - PPE and MPhil in economics (so, arts track).
Sharma - Applied Physics and Electronics (BSc), can’t dispute that one 
Liz truss - PPE
Coffey - Yep, Chemistry PhD, solid science degree, that
Williamson - Social Sciences. Despite this being a “BSc” it’s not really a science degree is it?
Eustace - no tertiary qualification
Jenrick - History ('nuff said) followed by postgrad Political Science and Law
Shapps - no tertiary qualification (has an HND)
Lewis - Law
Jack - no tertiary qualification
Hart - Agriculture
Baroness Evans - Social and Political Sciences
Dowden - Law
Trevelyan - Maths @ Oxford Poly (I’ll give that a “Science Grad”)
Milling - Economics
Barclay - History
Rees-Mogg - History
Spencer - Agriculture
Braverman - Law
So, what 3 solid science degrees out of 26 with most of the rest arts graduates and only a couple who do not have a degree of some sort. That probably proves that most rather than “not a single” actually do have arts degrees.
Anyone want to do the same exercise for the shadow cabinet?
Nothing much, though there is a general perception that science degrees are “harder” - certainly STEM subjects should equip one to look at data and do your own analysis whereas I am not sure to what extent that is true of arts degrees.
But it is a bit academic (if you will excuse the pun) as this lot have not been chosen for their educational achievements but their ability to toe the party line.
Thanks for that analysis. I did mean generic soft Arts degrees like PPE & Law as opposed to proper hard STEM degrees plus Medicine.
Hi Nigel, I’m amused that you think Law is a “soft Arts degree”, I imagine most lawyers would tell you otherwise. You may get a little flak for that one.
Izzy x
1 Like
Art degree to me means Art, not politics or economics. Apologies I am obviously not as academic as you both are so this distinction is a touch pompous to me. Anyway most courses require analytic thinking, reasoning and so on -and things like economics would require a lot of focus on data. I think it is hugely old fashioned to say science degrees are harder than arts degrees. My first degree was science and I can’t say it was hard.
1 Like
I m sure my lawyer friends and family would laugh to hear their degree described as soft
1 Like
Ah - if you want to define arts degrees as literally “Art” then I can see why you said you didn’t think any of the cabinet had an arts degree - in fact, on that definition, I would have to agree with you.
But I’ll stick to the traditional classification of (broadly) BA/MA/MPhil = “arts” subject, BSc/MSc/PhD = “science” subject.
OK, I am biased (being a “science” graduate) but while arts subjects might require analytical thinking it is not in the same camp at all.
Economics is an odd one, for one thing you can do it either as an “arts” or “science” degree and there should be a good bit of stats - but, fundamentally, I would argue it is not really a science subject.
Anyway, as I said, the present cabinet was not appointed for academic excellence.
PPE is NOT soft. The validity of any degree depends on where you do it.
3 Likes
Which is precisely one of the things it should not depend on.
1 Like
This is plainly wrong Paul - many maths degrees are BAs - and PPE comes within the ‘social science’ category.
Generally, people that think STEM subjects are either harder of more useful than subjects like the arts have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of liberal education - mistaking what should be a wonderful process of exploration, questioning and personal growth for a factory-fodder assembly line.
I would call them ‘gradgrinds’ - but of course they wouldn’t understand the allusion.
2 Likes
Depends on the university I think - Oxford only awards BA for its undergraduate courses (as does the OU IIRC).
Some subject are halfway houses, I agree, Social Sciences and Economics for instance where there is a decent amount of stats but the pure sciences are definitely a different mind set from these and “arts” subjects.
However I don’t really want the thread to drift into an argument into the relative merit of arts subjects vs science subjects - that particular debate is almost as old as universities themselves and I don’t think we are going to solve it here.
I don’t want it to revolve around the academic qualifications of the cabinet either though it is interesting to note that a) they are generally degree educated and b) they are generally graduates in “arts” subjects rather than sciences. but they weren’t selected for their academic abilities so it really is not a useful distinction.
there are two distinct qualities there Geoff “harder” is distinct from “more useful”.
It is horses for courses - if I want to build a bridge I’m not going to ask a historian to design it, but a world without art would be a dull place indeed and we (eg) certainly need to understand history (or be condemned to repeat its mistakes as they say) but I would still say that science subjects were “harder”.
Largely truisms Paul. Of course if you want a well-built bridge you should get in an engineer - and if you want accurate history you should get in a historian.
As to what is ‘hard’ - this is surely a function of the level of study, not what is being studied. Believe me, I could show you passages in books about ‘the arts’ -and in novels - you would find as opaque as quantum theory.
I was making (I thought) a rather more profound point: that ‘skills’ are not the central or most important purpose of education, but self-discovery and a rounded understanding and appreciation of people and life are what it’s really all about - but of course the Gradgrinds of this world don’t want people to really understand the whole picture, do they? - they want ‘skilled’ workers.
1 Like