Hard News: Sunday newspaper prints informative and well-researched story
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
One specific thing that struck me in the article was the way the effectiveness data was expressed. Clearly and, I assume, accurately.
If you talk in terms of actual (or example) numbers, you also get to avoid the % sign, much-dreaded and often slightly ambiguous (percentage of what exactly?).
-
The RMA is a pretty good analogy.
There are plenty of property developers focused on good outcomes who see the RMA as a well-intentioned but poorly executed piece of legislation (i.e. facilitating lowest common denominator development) and similarly I reckon that most pharma companies are OK with the current health funding mechanism (so long as they are recognised as the sole provider of a specific drug).
While Pharmac is essential for 'equitable' distribution of health budget, it does have some potentially serious downsides; it reduces the choice of drugs available, and it facilitates lowest cost decision-making in health. But I really don't know if there is a better alternative anywhere else.
Like the RMA, the Health funding mechanism should be all about execution, with the major driver being the outcome, not the process.
-
One specific thing that struck me in the article was the way the effectiveness data was expressed. Clearly and, I assume, accurately.
Yes. That was excellent. Not only do the numbers not look nearly as exciting as the relative percentages (50% being bandied round), but you realise just how many women would be taking it for no benefit. Cost/benefit analysis is pretty ugly, but $1.6million per life saved (plus not quite one other person suffering cardiac damage) is not the most compelling equation.
And on the other topic du jour, the weather's been pretty warm the last few days, apparently to the extent that I've been hearing of people "sweating like an assistant police commissioner" (with apologies to Marc Ellis).
-
Richard: Your statement that health funding decision-making should be primarily about outcomes rather than process seems a little strange coming from a public affairs professional such as yourself.... the whole reason that there is controversy - as in any case of making trade-offs of the nature that Pharmac makes - is one of political deliberative process rather than outcomes.
-
Marcus - I probably didn't explain myself that well, but I would argue that a focus on due process is, in itself, a very fine thing, but worthless if the outcome is poor.
Agree that measuring the best possible outcome, say in the case of the trade-offs that Pharmac has to make, is hellishly difficult, but I personally believe any process should serve outcome, not the other way round.
Mind you, from a political/media perspective, flaws in process are easier to find, and are usually symptomatic of something else worth looking at! :)
-
Speaking of current affairs programmes, here's a list of some recent complaints the Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld either in full or in part against TVNZ's flagship Sunday programme:
There's the CYFS one, in which the programme's conduct in framing its story was simply outrageous:
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-058.htm
The Family Court one, in which the BSA agreed that a child had been "unnecessarily identified and exploited" in the programme, which made "highly offensive disclosure of private facts" about the child in its sympathetic story about fathers with a grievance against the court:
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-090.htm
And ...
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-013.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-129.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-129.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-038_39.htmWhat on earth is going on there?
-
My point is I guess is that these problems such as those faced by Pharmac in allocating funding or spatial planners cannot be solved by technocrats in a democratic society - where there is no unambigious "best outcome" that you presuppose. Pharmac will only become more effective as a public agency when it is democratised in its allocative decision-making, through the distribution of its information and the inclusion of the national public in making the trade-offs that it needs to make.
-
Russell wrote: Check the Weekend Herald. A few other cops seemed to think it happened more than once.
Hmmm, unlike you, I don't believe everything I read in the Herald. Or should we do away with our systme of justice and have the accused's guilt judged by a poll of Herald readers? It sure would save a lot of time and money.
-
Marcus - would forcing Pharmac to include the public in their decision-making process make them more effective?
Good question. Wish I knew the answer. Again I would be a little wary of adding layers of consultation and process without understanding if it would improve the 'outcome'.
But to take your point, if there is no unambiguous outcome to be had - then maybe the benefits of more inclusive and informed decision-making from a public agency would outweigh the costs.
Sounds reasonable. But if the reality means that funding decisions may take many more years and are subject to constant challenge from affected parties, are we better off?
-
Hmmm, unlike you, I don't believe everything I read in the Herald. Or should we do away with our systme of justice and have the accused's guilt judged by a poll of Herald readers? It sure would save a lot of time and money.
I've explained this in the 'Bad men' thread, but here we go again. The statements were sworn evidence given in court by three different policemen, plus a woman who said she had participated in such an act.
Perhaps now you could admit that this comment was wholly misinformed:
I totally agree. Can you provide us with some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton. Take your time. Thanks.
Well?
-
Richard: I think you are somewhat missing the point, in a way I find somewhat puzzling for someone in your trade...
Pharmac's problem is one of legitimacy, not instrumental efficacy. Simply technocratically rejigging its mix of drugs funded can never solve its seeming lack of legitimacy in a somewhat open, democratic society. Increasing participation in its decision-making processes could however address this problem it faces.
I agree that tradtional consultation processes are flawed, both for reasons of time (as you mention) and their inclusiveness. I therefore favour the development of so-called "Citizens Juries" which, subject to their design, are potentially time-efficient and inclusive.
-
Can you provide us with some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton.
What Russell said. I think it was acknowledged by some of the parties concerned that a baton was used. The question of consent is the part that was in question.
Craig, I'm not really worried about the "normality" of the activities concerned myself. I don't care whether it was one or many cops fucking a young woman with a baton with hazy consent - if you're into sexual/violent power trips that you can't keep in the bedroom, I don't want you in a police force I'm expected to trust.
But yes, I totally agree that the root issue is quite similar to the one with the teacher and the student. But there is that extra layer of ickitude if someone has a kink that their position would be feeding, so to speak. So, I think a more direct equivalent would be if a person known for having a fetish for teenagers was found to be a teacher (I'm not using the word "pedophile", because I'm trying to keep the age of consent issue out of it).
Still, it doesn't matter that I'm a bit extra squicked by that aspect, you're right that the issue of professional ethics and abuse of power is the base, and I sure as hell don't think a senior police officer should be vague on any of that. Also, the fact that the only thing he sees wrong with the situation was his cheating on his partner at the time!! I'm sure he'll be a sterling model to his subordinates. Not.
-
What on earth is going on there?
We're talking about the organisation that's just laid off Maryanne Ahern - and whatever you may think of Kim Hill or Paul Holmes, they at least had the nous to work with a producer who isn't an amateur who just blew in from the nearest polytech course. The problem with getting a complex story right, rather than done (and sexed up) right now is that it's going to take time, staff and people who have enough of an institutional memory to not make the same old mistakes all over again.
That requires lots of money - at least if you're even slightly serious about producing 'in-depth news and current affairs'.And it's not as if they can rehire Paul Homes and Judy Bailey and fire 'em all over again...
-
Marcus: - I suspect you know a little more about my 'trade' than I about yours (whatever that is) .... I speak from a personal view only.
Perhaps I am missing your point - or vice-versa - I don't disagree that one of Pharmacs problems is legitimacy (indeed, I argued on a separate thread some months ago that Pharmac have not been winning - or even engaging - in the battle for hearts and minds, much to the cost of their reputation).
And, indeed, I don't recall advocating 'technocratically rejigging its mix of drugs funded' either. My point was, increasing the participation in decision-making process sounds absolutely great in theory and in principle. I simply don't know if it - in a public agency sense - will deliver a better 'outcome' unless we learn from mistakes made in the past.
Which leads back to the original spot I leapt in at on this thread, as we have seen with the RMA, sometimes well intentioned changes made to due process, for the very reason of increasing consultation and inclusiveness, can over-time become counter-productive.
What can tend to happen in practice is that important decisions enter 'consultation-hell', or the consultation process is conducted for purely compliance/cosmetic/legitimacy reasons. In the end, neither of those outcomes resemble open democracy.
But if 'Citizens Juries' is such a mechanism that can provide a more inclusive as well as functioning process that delivers good outcomes - then heck, lets give 'em a try!.
-
> I can see how a serious researcher would get unhappy with policy being made like that.
Which is why there's been so much opposition to the meningococcal B vaccine roll-out, which has cost taxpayers more than $200 million. And there's no evidence that it has saved any lives. Of course, the Heath Ministry promised it would save dozens of lives even though it admitted there was no efficacy data on the vaccine.
-
> The statements were sworn evidence given in court by three different policemen, plus a woman who said she had participated in such an act...
What you're doing is accepting the sworn statements of some witnesses and not others. Clearly, the jury didn't agree with you about the credibility of this sworn evidence. And on your other thread, I've demonstrated that one of these so-called credible witnesses had previously claimed that the baton referred to by Louise at al couldn't have been used. Did this witness change his story? If so, why?
-
What you're doing is accepting the sworn statements of some witnesses and not others.
Pardon? There were witnesses able to state authoritatively that none of the defendants had ever used a police baton as part of a sexual act? I clearly missed that part.
Honestly Ross, I as I've said in the other thread, I'm calling you a troll. You mocked another commenter for saying something for which four people have given sworn evidence in court, and when the evidence was pointed out to you, you began making silly excuses. Stop, or go away.
-
Clearly, the jury didn't agree with you about the credibility of this sworn evidence.
Clearl, my arse - for all you and I know, that jury reached their verdict through a 'rock, paper, scissors' round robin. they could have reached a not guilty verdict though any number of trains of argument, including that the witnesses were credible but there was still reasonable doubt in their minds. It's a tough standard to reach, and should be when there's a lengthy prison sentence at stake. Until the idea of jurors deliberating in secret is replaced with live feeds from Jury-cams who knows?
Nor, Russell's right - you've repeatedly implied that numerous people gave false statements to police, perjured themselves under oath, and are flat out liars for reasons you can't explain. You can't have it both ways, chum - put up or go back to your bridge and wait for the Three Billy-Goats Gruff to come by.
-
> Honestly Ross, I as I've said in the other thread, I'm calling you a troll.
What a surprise. You can't debate the issues, so you get personal.
You might like to reflect on the fact that none of the 36 jurors who, unlike you, heard the evidence over three trials supports your version of events. Why is that? Why is it that not one juror apparently believed that a baton was used? Obviously they're wrong and you're right.
> There were witnesses able to state authoritatively that none of the defendants had ever used a police baton as part of a sexual act?
I see...so witnesses now have to prove a negative. Enough said.
-
> you've repeatedly implied that numerous people gave false statements to police....
The prime witnesses (ie, the accusers) in the last two trials both ADMITTED they'd lied about key details when cross-examined. What part of that statement don't you understand?
>...perjured themselves under oath, and are flat out liars for reasons you can't explain.
Would you show me where I've said that? I assume you can substantiate that comment.
-
And there's no evidence that it has saved any lives. Of course, the Heath Ministry promised it would save dozens of lives even though it admitted there was no efficacy data on the vaccine.
The evidence as to whether it has saved lives is still a couple of years away. If you want to find out whether something works, you need to give it to them first, and then, like, wait a while.
-
Meanwhile, over at the Fundy Post, Paul has his wicked, godless fun with the nether regions of the same newspaper.
Heh, I enjoyed that. As well as being a West Ham fan (which automatically makes him a good bloke), Steve Braunias was both funny and a degenerate. Joanne Black is neither, more's the pity.
Between JB and Pamela Stirling, the Listener needs a bit of a sort out tbh. See what you can do will you Russ?
-
James,
The MeNZB vaccine has been the biggest health initiative ever. Are you saying that the govt is in the business of committing more than $200 million without knowing the likelihood of success? And, no, to find out if something works, you do trials before deciding if it's worth going ahead with spending such a vast sum.
-
The prime witnesses (ie, the accusers) in the last two trials both ADMITTED they'd lied about key details when cross-examined. What part of that statement don't you understand?
Actually, the woman in the most recent case stated that the police mis-recorded her statement (that she was involved in a relationship with Rickards for 6 months). Frankly, it's quite plausible, as she had been in a relationship with Shipton for that time, and I assume that's where the confusion arose. I'm not saying she's DEFINITELY telling the truth here, but it's rather foolish to outrightly claim she lied as well.
Would you show me where I've said that? I assume you can substantiate that comment.
No, you just put it out there as a nasty little piece of unproven innuendo, that - surprise, surprise -supported your point of view.
I guess because you felt that verifiable facts held an unfair bias against you?
-
Are you saying that the govt is in the business of committing more than $200 million without knowing the likelihood of success?
I don't know about $200 million, but I haven't seen any hard evidence that specific tenets of the road safety campaign work (sure the road toll is dropping, but as to whether the TV ads, for example, work, is unproven). Internationally, the DARE program has been shown to be spectacularly unsuccessful, but is heavily funded here and overseas.
Public health initiatives are innately a bit slippery. Much like the road toll, the number of lives saved is small relative to the exposed population, so any trial to prove efficacy would have to involve a very large portion of the population. There is also the fact that because it's a now issue, delaying it would miss the point of it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.