|
Post by Gassy on Jun 15, 2021 20:54:05 GMT
The government are pushing through a plan to sell off NHS health data of every patient in England to third parties companies, similar to the plan proposed by Cameron in 2013. Unlike 2013, they’ve done no PR and made no announcements about it all, trying to push it through on the sly. They’ve left it up to GP’s to communicate this and due to the pandemic and the massive medical backlog they’ve been facing, often this just hasn’t been a priority for them (understandably). Now, this may have good intentions for research and the data is supposed to be largely anonymous, I don’t have much trust in the government and the NHS handling such data in secure and confidential way, especially after recent breaches committed by certain NHS trusts. Recent Cyber attacks also concern me. More about this here if anyone is interested, it includes a form to opt out too. medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400902Working in this industry I’d say it’s actually a good thing. Believe me when I say that patient leave data is highly protected and regulated. As a quick example, if you enter a clinical trial now the sponsor (Pharma company) doesn’t even know who you are. They’re just assigned a patient number like TB104473-N. And that’s your number for that trial only. Plus we have UK GDPR (the copy cat of GDPR post Brexit) which would make a lot of this unbelievably illegal and measures will be in place that they wouldn’t be able to sell PII (patient identifiable information) even if they wanted to. Now of course this does lead onto what future plans the Tories have with selling the NHS, which is a larger issue. But realistically they’ll do that anyway unless they’re voted out. Third parties sounds dirtier than it actually is, on the whole as long as PII isn’t stored then this is actually a good thing. It changes the way medicines are developed and brings forward a new era of precision medicine
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Jun 15, 2021 21:07:01 GMT
The government are pushing through a plan to sell off NHS health data of every patient in England to third parties companies, similar to the plan proposed by Cameron in 2013. Unlike 2013, they’ve done no PR and made no announcements about it all, trying to push it through on the sly. They’ve left it up to GP’s to communicate this and due to the pandemic and the massive medical backlog they’ve been facing, often this just hasn’t been a priority for them (understandably). Now, this may have good intentions for research and the data is supposed to be largely anonymous, I don’t have much trust in the government and the NHS handling such data in secure and confidential way, especially after recent breaches committed by certain NHS trusts. Recent Cyber attacks also concern me. More about this here if anyone is interested, it includes a form to opt out too. medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400902Working in this industry I’d say it’s actually a good thing. Believe me when I say that patient leave data is highly protected and regulated. As a quick example, if you enter a clinical trial now the sponsor (Pharma company) doesn’t even know who you are. They’re just assigned a patient number like TB104473-N. And that’s your number for that trial only. Plus we have UK GDPR (the copy cat of GDPR post Brexit) which would make a lot of this unbelievably illegal and measures will be in place that they wouldn’t be able to sell PII (patient identifiable information) even if they wanted to. Now of course this does lead onto what future plans the Tories have with selling the NHS, which is a larger issue. But realistically they’ll do that anyway unless they’re voted out. Third parties sounds dirtier than it actually is, on the whole as long as PII isn’t stored then this is actually a good thing. It changes the way medicines are developed and brings forward a new era of precision medicine I don’t like the principle of governments introducing legislation about peoples data without full consultation with the general public first, something it’s quite evident they’ve not done. I also don’t like how it’s not fully anonymous. If it was, then I’d have less concerns about it. I’m weary that what companies say in public and what they do in private are often two different things. I’m sure there will be a rigorous process and many boxes needed to be ticked but after that? Then there are the cyber attacks that have increased in frequency and scope recently. It’s already shown how vulnerable NHS computer systems can be, even if they have got their act together since, can we guarantee that all these third party companies are secure enough as well? Everything you say about the benefits are correct and if it was implemented differently I may find myself backing it. I just think this mistrust is enough to make me opt out at this time. Although I think its quite clear that hundreds of thousands informed people will opt out and tens of millions of people that aren’t even aware of this will be included.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 15, 2021 21:28:36 GMT
Working in this industry I’d say it’s actually a good thing. Believe me when I say that patient leave data is highly protected and regulated. As a quick example, if you enter a clinical trial now the sponsor (Pharma company) doesn’t even know who you are. They’re just assigned a patient number like TB104473-N. And that’s your number for that trial only. Plus we have UK GDPR (the copy cat of GDPR post Brexit) which would make a lot of this unbelievably illegal and measures will be in place that they wouldn’t be able to sell PII (patient identifiable information) even if they wanted to. Now of course this does lead onto what future plans the Tories have with selling the NHS, which is a larger issue. But realistically they’ll do that anyway unless they’re voted out. Third parties sounds dirtier than it actually is, on the whole as long as PII isn’t stored then this is actually a good thing. It changes the way medicines are developed and brings forward a new era of precision medicine I don’t like the principle of governments introducing legislation about peoples data without full consultation with the general public first, something it’s quite evident they’ve not done. I also don’t like how it’s not fully anonymous. If it was, then I’d have less concerns about it. I’m weary that what companies say in public and what they do in private are often two different things. I’m sure there will be a rigorous process and many boxes needed to be ticked but after that? Then there are the cyber attacks that have increased in frequency and scope recently. It’s already shown how vulnerable NHS computer systems can be, even if they have got their act together since, can we guarantee that all these third party companies are secure enough as well? Everything you say about the benefits are correct and if it was implemented differently I may find myself backing it. I just think this mistrust is enough to make me opt out at this time. Although I think its quite clear that hundreds of thousands informed people will opt out and tens of millions of people that aren’t even aware of this will be included. Yeah, I do completely agree with you on the principle, it smells dodgy. When you say fully anonymous, what do you mean exactly? The data is pretty anonymous. An example of how the data would be used: Pfizer have a new drug that targets x indication. However, they don't have the data to see how likely specific subgroups of patients (age, race, sex, other illnesses etc) are to develop that illness. They could analyse the metadata, which is just pure data on information stated above and what symptoms they develop. From that they can shape clinical development to be more targeted at a specific subgroup of patients, saving lives. Yes in theory the third party could be hacked, but the data is all anonymised anyway - and when I say anonymised, I don't mean hidden. I mean they don't even own the data to see who the patient is anyway. So they'd just be hacking healthcare data which would be pretty useless. If you're worried the NHS could be hacked, then that wouldn't really change anything in this scenario. Ironically, I'd probably argue that a lot of third party companies have better security than the NHS. But again, if the PII isn't there then there isn't anything to hack. MSD were had a huge hack a few years ago and were locked out their computers, since then industry has really ramped up. My company told us that in 2020, we had over 1 BILLION attempted hacks. None were successful. But yeah, I do completely understand where you're coming from. I really considered opting out a couple of weeks ago, but decided against it. The way its communicated is shoddy, if they actually sold this correctly to the public, showed use cases how it'd be done and the benefits it really could bring, a lot more people would be open for it.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2021 21:33:00 GMT
I opted out a few weeks ago. Don’t trust them.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 18, 2021 5:02:46 GMT
👀
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 18, 2021 5:49:40 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57513415Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has hailed Health Secretary Matt Hancock as a "successful genius" - after he was allegedly branded "hopeless" by the PM. ——— Umm... You know when the Tories have brought out Rees-Moog to steal the headlines again, they know they’re in trouble
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 18, 2021 6:17:44 GMT
for reference Labour were never going to win there, but polled just 622 votes, down from something like 10k in 2017
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 18, 2021 7:58:34 GMT
for reference Labour were never going to win there, but polled just 622 votes, down from something like 10k in 2017 Good to see tactical voting . The parties might not have agreed on a progressive alliance but the public might of .
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 18, 2021 8:20:05 GMT
for reference Labour were never going to win there, but polled just 622 votes, down from something like 10k in 2017 Good to see tactical voting . The parties might not have agreed on a progressive alliance but the public might of . I think in the south thats right.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 21, 2021 13:09:29 GMT
😏?!
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 21, 2021 15:32:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 21, 2021 23:17:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 22, 2021 8:26:14 GMT
Remember this bill? It seems over the top to me and apparently the Select Committee isn't keen either. I'd love to see the Select Committees get more direct involvement in things and be able to call people in. Something Thatcher introduced in the 80s I recall. "The government should drop its "disproportionate" plan to ban noisy protests in England and Wales, a parliamentary committee has warned. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would also introduce powers to deal with demonstrations involving only one person. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the legislation could undermine freedom of expression. But the Home Office said it would not "impinge" on the right to protest. Existing laws are out of date and "disruptive and dangerous tactics" have to be dealt with, a spokeswoman added. The committee's chairwoman, former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, said the plans were "oppressive and wrong"." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57556947
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 22, 2021 9:17:05 GMT
Remember this bill? It seems over the top to me and apparently the Select Committee isn't keen either. I'd love to see the Select Committees get more direct involvement in things and be able to call people in. Something Thatcher introduced in the 80s I recall. "The government should drop its "disproportionate" plan to ban noisy protests in England and Wales, a parliamentary committee has warned. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would also introduce powers to deal with demonstrations involving only one person. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the legislation could undermine freedom of expression. But the Home Office said it would not "impinge" on the right to protest. Existing laws are out of date and "disruptive and dangerous tactics" have to be dealt with, a spokeswoman added. The committee's chairwoman, former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, said the plans were "oppressive and wrong"." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57556947How could we forget. Our very own Purdown Poacher representing some of us when protesting against it. To your point this government appears inclined to run rough shod over our democratic processes, to the point that the Speaker intervened last week.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 23, 2021 11:18:07 GMT
The other forum has written a song 🎶
Wanna hear it ? 👂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 11:51:16 GMT
The other forum has written a song 🎶 Wanna hear it ? 👂 are these lads making a come back? Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 23, 2021 22:15:22 GMT
The other forum has written a song 🎶 Wanna hear it ? 👂 are these lads making a come back? View AttachmentI fear thats what this government wants
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 24, 2021 10:16:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 25, 2021 10:37:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 25, 2021 11:06:22 GMT
Matt Hand Cock....jesus. Whats wrong with the woman?
|
|