It's big business too. In the UK, cardiologist Dr <name witheld> made a £1.7 million (~$ 1.98 million) profit at his private clinic in London by selling £2.5 million (~$ 2.91 million) worth of COVID-19 tests in less than a week.
I'm really not sure what to think about this.
On the one hand, IF the cardiologist in question was not preventing testing capacity being used by the NHS, where's the harm in extracting money from rich people who can afford it (although some may have been desperately anxious not-so-rich people).
On the other hand, making what appears to me to be excessive amounts of profit from people's anxieties seems unethical (which is one of my beefs about woo in general).
Last edited by Stephanie on Thu May 14, 2020 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Moved from Weighty Matters
He sold 6600 test kits - a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed nationally. If this results in a few celebrities going public to say they have been infected, that's probably a big win for the public interest as it will make more people believe that they and their relatives can catch it.
Millennie Al wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:37 am
He sold 6600 test kits - a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed nationally. If this results in a few celebrities going public to say they have been infected, that's probably a big win for the public interest as it will make more people believe that they and their relatives can catch it.
Welcome Millenie Al, nice first post. I hope you stick around and carry on participating in this forum.
Millennie Al wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:37 am
He sold 6600 test kits - a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed nationally. If this results in a few celebrities going public to say they have been infected, that's probably a big win for the public interest as it will make more people believe that they and their relatives can catch it.
Also, did he sell tests that would otherwise have been used by the NHS, or did he increase the total amount of tests in the U.K. (eg by independently sourcing the tests from another supplier). If the former then bad, if the latter then meh.
lpm wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:29 am
Fundamentally, private healthcare does not exist in a public contagion world.
That is very dangerous. With a central command (as lefties love), those in charge are convinced they're right and often pursue policies which cannot be proved wrong because there is no alternative. In the case of Covid-19, we have seen people in various parts of the world claim that the number of cases is much smaller than it really is, and it's private testing like this which shows when this is wrong. If all tests must go through the NHS, that means that when the NHS wrongly claims that someone does not need to be tested, then there is no way to prove that wrong than to wait for that person, or those they have infected, to appear at a hospital seriously ill. With private testing, even in very small numbers, errors of this type are much more visible and can be corrected much earlier.
It's like how having two eyes gives a better picture of the world than one. It's a form of diversity.
lpm wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:29 am
Fundamentally, private healthcare does not exist in a public contagion world.
That is very dangerous. With a central command (as lefties love), those in charge are convinced they're right and often pursue policies which cannot be proved wrong because there is no alternative. In the case of Covid-19, we have seen people in various parts of the world claim that the number of cases is much smaller than it really is, and it's private testing like this which shows when this is wrong. If all tests must go through the NHS, that means that when the NHS wrongly claims that someone does not need to be tested, then there is no way to prove that wrong than to wait for that person, or those they have infected, to appear at a hospital seriously ill. With private testing, even in very small numbers, errors of this type are much more visible and can be corrected much earlier.
It's like how having two eyes gives a better picture of the world than one. It's a form of diversity.
That's an argument for something. But it's not an argument for this.
With 6,600 tests there could have been an experiment to double check the NHS. University researchers testing 6,600 people for example, collating results properly.
lpm wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:29 am
Fundamentally, private healthcare does not exist in a public contagion world.
That is very dangerous. With a central command (as lefties love), those in charge are convinced they're right and often pursue policies which cannot be proved wrong because there is no alternative. In the case of Covid-19, we have seen people in various parts of the world claim that the number of cases is much smaller than it really is, and it's private testing like this which shows when this is wrong. If all tests must go through the NHS, that means that when the NHS wrongly claims that someone does not need to be tested, then there is no way to prove that wrong than to wait for that person, or those they have infected, to appear at a hospital seriously ill. With private testing, even in very small numbers, errors of this type are much more visible and can be corrected much earlier.
It's like how having two eyes gives a better picture of the world than one. It's a form of diversity.
That's an argument for something. But it's not an argument for this.
With 6,600 tests there could have been an experiment to double check the NHS. University researchers testing 6,600 people for example, collating results properly.
Yes. Independent testing may well be a good thing, and may even be more important than insuring sufficient tests are available for front-line workers and vulnerable people.
But I disagree where Millennie Al says "private testing like this" - private testing, maybe. But like this? No. Flogging tests to the highest bidder is not a sensible method for a confirmatory study of NHS testing protocols. It's naked profiteering and deeply unpleasant.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
I always knew that there were a lot of people who would happily condemn thousands of other, more vulnerable people to suffering and death in order to make money.
But this pandemic has certainly made it more obvious, more public, and more viscerally repugnant.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
lpm wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:29 am
Fundamentally, private healthcare does not exist in a public contagion world.
...With a central command (as lefties love)..
A very broad brush that. 'The Left' includes Kropotkin as well as Lenin.
Kropotkin was an anarchist, not a leftie. Once your philosophy is sufficently remote from reality, it does not matter what it contains because it's nothing more than fantasy anyway.
lpm wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:48 am
With 6,600 tests there could have been an experiment to double check the NHS. University researchers testing 6,600 people for example, collating results properly.
Yes. Independent testing may well be a good thing, and may even be more important than insuring sufficient tests are available for front-line workers and vulnerable people.
But I disagree where Millennie Al says "private testing like this" - private testing, maybe. But like this? No. Flogging tests to the highest bidder is not a sensible method for a confirmatory study of NHS testing protocols. It's naked profiteering and deeply unpleasant.
There could have been such an experiment, but only in an alternate reality. The tests were available and I'm sure there would have been no shortage of donors willing to finance such an experiment, if only someone had proposed it, but it still didn't happen. Private testing is either like this or not at all. It does no good wishing that things were better.
Millennie Al wrote: Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:51 am
Kropotkin was an anarchist, not a leftie. Once your philosophy is sufficently remote from reality, it does not matter what it contains because it's nothing more than fantasy anyway.
A very broad brush that. 'The Left' includes Kropotkin as well as Lenin.
Kropotkin was an anarchist, not a leftie. Once your philosophy is sufficently remote from reality, it does not matter what it contains because it's nothing more than fantasy anyway.
True. Look at Ayn Rand.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
EACLucifer wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:17 pm
It appears Owen Paterson is among the profiteers
In what way is he?
Getting a fucktonne of money from a firm hoarding tests and selling them to those with money, rather than those we urgently need to test, eg frontline NHS workers.
For the hard of thinking who think profiteering is clever and acceptable, it's roughly akin to keeping private car manufacturing open during the second world war, when resources and facilities were urgently needed for the war effort.
lpm wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:48 am
With 6,600 tests there could have been an experiment to double check the NHS. University researchers testing 6,600 people for example, collating results properly.
Yes. Independent testing may well be a good thing, and may even be more important than insuring sufficient tests are available for front-line workers and vulnerable people.
But I disagree where Millennie Al says "private testing like this" - private testing, maybe. But like this? No. Flogging tests to the highest bidder is not a sensible method for a confirmatory study of NHS testing protocols. It's naked profiteering and deeply unpleasant.
There could have been such an experiment, but only in an alternate reality. The tests were available and I'm sure there would have been no shortage of donors willing to finance such an experiment, if only someone had proposed it, but it still didn't happen. Private testing is either like this or not at all. It does no good wishing that things were better.
Well, given the choice between selling scarce life-saving resources based on money rather than need or "not at all", I think "not at all" is the clear winner.
This isn't China. The media and internet are full of political dissent. If they NHS were not testing people who should be (for reasons other than the shortage of tests and staff) there are plenty of people who'd blow the whistle and be heard. Spaffing thousands of tests up the wall to make a quick buck doesn't help.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
A very broad brush that. 'The Left' includes Kropotkin as well as Lenin.
Kropotkin was an anarchist, not a leftie. Once your philosophy is sufficently remote from reality, it does not matter what it contains because it's nothing more than fantasy anyway.
Kropotkin was definitely a leftie. He was imprisoned for distributing communist literature, and is still widely regarded amongst various flavours of leftists (and evolutionary biologists, for that matter).
And it seems odd to call his work "remote from reality" at a time when a distributed network of grassroots community organisations, that literally has 'Mutual Aid' in its name, has stepped in to help people survive the pandemic in the absence of anything organised by the government.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
pharmacy is selling toilet paper at 40p a roll
