Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On DPF / Urgency, the Standard has a good point (the Standard is usually a bit foamy for me, but they're right here).
And then their comments section is a complete sewer, telling everyone who disagrees with them to f%^& off, and writing in big bold black under their comments to tell them why they're wrong.
They constantly undermine the credibility they might otherwise have by being rude and arrogant bullies.
-
From the New York Times, here's a stunning indictment of the 'No Child Left Behind' policy which has proved such a terrible failure in the United States.
It is roundly acknowledged as having had no benefit, and only because it is a legacy project of the Bush Jr. administration has it been left in place. It will be removed some time shortly after Obama takes office.
-
On Herceptin, the Pharmac document (PDF) James Green linked to upthread is worth reading. My apologies if these quotes have been printed here before.
PTAC considered that data for Herceptin in HER2 positive early breast cancer has been,
and continues to be, subject to unacceptable publication bias. Given this unacceptable
publication bias PTAC felt compelled to consider all relevant data sources regardless of
format or detail.Pharmac then quotes Metcalf, from the Lancet
The effect of publication bias is outlined in the recent Lancet article (Metcalfe et al.
Lancet 2008;371:1646-8.) which expressed concerns about Herceptin publication bias.
‘Failing to publish inconclusive results can mean wide (and wasteful) use of
ineffective treatments, or even unnecessary illness and death if the reported risks
of harms are underestimated. Clearly adjuvant trastuzumab is effective but how
best to use it appears to have been hampered by some publication choices that
presently are unclear. There is a duty of care to trial participants, sponsors,
regulators, and the public good to promptly publish outcomes in all exposure
groups.’There are some highly positive studies showing significant improvement in survival rates (~6/100 after 3 years), and no doubt this is what the breast cancer groups and the drug lobbyists have been highlighting. And with that kind of improvement, they might expect to be indignant or even outraged about its non-funding. But Pharmac has a duty to be rigorous and prudent* and has reason to be cautious about these results.
They then go on to state that
no new information had been
presented that has demonstrated any additional health benefit for 12 months treatment
(sequential or concurrent) over the currently funded concurrent 9 week regimen.and that more evidence would be required that demonstrated such an improvement before funding a 12 month course should be considered.
It's an indictment of the quality of this Government, that they're going expressly against high quality advice this early. It should concern every thinking person in New Zealand.
*If only all Government departments had such a grounding in evidence based research.
-
$3000.00 fine if your kid isn't enrolled in school.
Does that outlaw homeschooling then?
-
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. Resignations and firings mean you're stood down for 13 weeks.
And the fact that under 25s have to live on $165 rather than $199. Cause, y'know, rent, bills and food is cheaper when you're 24.
-
13 weeks stand down for unemployment
Bloody hell! Is there a source for that?
If they knew how much hardship is caused by the present 2 week stand-down period... but they have no intention of knowing.
I remember when my family had to wait 6 weeks in the 1990s - we weren't paying rent, so I have no idea how someone who was could have survived. 13 is just unthinkable.
We're going Back to the Future!
-
And all this is without recourse to any employment tribunal.
Are you sure?
And as 3410 says above, more than 20 employees.
A correction to an earlier posting - $10 per week.
-
Yep. And if I recall correctly, for people earning around that mark, and who don't have children (ie aren't getting WFF), you get a whole $10!
You'd have to save up for 3 weeks to buy a packet of Wrigleys. And at least a year to get a 1kg block of cheese.
-
Not withstanding that I agree mostly with Idiot/Savant about select committees and so-on, I do think that using urgency in the dying hours is a bad thing.
Using urgency to get bills through their final sages before a break - or an election - isn't an abuse.
A minor abuse. But nothing much to get indignant about. There are other reasons why they're not so good however.
Bills strongly opposed by the opposition before an election passed in this way are likely to get repealed if the government changes, and will be continued if reelected. It can be useful however if the new Government decides it does not have the time or energy to undo all the changes, particularly minor ones.
It was also an inditement on the Labour Government's inability to get most of that legislation passed earlier, particularly the ETS. We've been talking about emissions reductions instruments since the early 1990s...
-
I believe its traditional to set fire to things as well.
Rioting, let me show you it. Should you need any inspiration.
Isn't it too early to riot on the streets yet? I thought this was supposed to come after the "Great Cheese March' of 2009?