Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
The original Nick the Greek said:
Dixy said:
Turbo, this is the abuse I referred to.
Abuse?Thats not abuse fella.
That's merely a gentle ribbing designed to make you smile.
I only get really abusive if I get angry. Volvo drivers make me angry.
spaximus said:
The original Nick the Greek said:
Dixy said:
Turbo, this is the abuse I referred to.
Abuse?Thats not abuse fella.
That's merely a gentle ribbing designed to make you smile.
I only get really abusive if I get angry. Volvo drivers make me angry.
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
Because most computers come complete with a calculator that can do percentages.The 98% he claims is actually less than 98%. He is therefore giving incorrect figures to 'support' his argument.
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Halb said:
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Which ever way you slice it and the figures I have used are from the BMA, it still is a massive vote for the strike action.
The DOH have tried to say it was less by subtracting others and assuming those not in the BMA did not support the action, but no one knows what their views were.
From all I have read, the only Doctors who were working were those which it had been agreed would work, by the BMA. My daughter and her friends know of none who went in, so where Hunt got his 40% were in work figure from only he knows.
We can argue on here, but the only ones who know the true figures will be the BMA and the DOH and somewhere between what they claim is the truth. I would favour the BMA figures.
spaximus said:
Halb said:
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Which ever way you slice it and the figures I have used are from the BMA, it still is a massive vote for the strike action.
The DOH have tried to say it was less by subtracting others and assuming those not in the BMA did not support the action, but no one knows what their views were.
From all I have read, the only Doctors who were working were those which it had been agreed would work, by the BMA. My daughter and her friends know of none who went in, so where Hunt got his 40% were in work figure from only he knows.
We can argue on here, but the only ones who know the true figures will be the BMA and the DOH and somewhere between what they claim is the truth. I would favour the BMA figures.
28/53 - you can probably work out the percentage yourself.
IroningMan said:
spaximus said:
Halb said:
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Which ever way you slice it and the figures I have used are from the BMA, it still is a massive vote for the strike action.
The DOH have tried to say it was less by subtracting others and assuming those not in the BMA did not support the action, but no one knows what their views were.
From all I have read, the only Doctors who were working were those which it had been agreed would work, by the BMA. My daughter and her friends know of none who went in, so where Hunt got his 40% were in work figure from only he knows.
We can argue on here, but the only ones who know the true figures will be the BMA and the DOH and somewhere between what they claim is the truth. I would favour the BMA figures.
28/53 - you can probably work out the percentage yourself.
spaximus said:
Halb said:
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Which ever way you slice it and the figures I have used are from the BMA, it still is a massive vote for the strike action.
The DOH have tried to say it was less by subtracting others and assuming those not in the BMA did not support the action, but no one knows what their views were.
From all I have read, the only Doctors who were working were those which it had been agreed would work, by the BMA. My daughter and her friends know of none who went in, so where Hunt got his 40% were in work figure from only he knows.
We can argue on here, but the only ones who know the true figures will be the BMA and the DOH and somewhere between what they claim is the truth. I would favour the BMA figures.
The bit I bolded. 98% of those who retuned the ballot voted to strike, 76% of those who were balloted, 9,000 didn't return the paper.
Dixy said:
As usual arguments over semantics. the question is do we want highly motivated, well trained highly skilled doctors who are the best of the best. Or do we not care at the moment cos we don't need them just now.
It's good to be accurate, otherwise there is no point in posting data.greygoose said:
IroningMan said:
spaximus said:
Halb said:
Dixy said:
So why don't you post the correct numbers and state source, rather than just being sanctimonious.
I posted this at the top, not sure if it was bypassed by all.https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-...
Facts are said:
Out of over 37,000 doctors balloted, about 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against. 98% is the proportion of votes in favour of a strike among those who responded.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote (so the response rate was 76%, as media coverage mentioned). Roughly 16,000-23,000 additional junior doctors weren't balloted. About 3,000 of these are members of the BMA but weren't eligible to vote as they won't be affected by the changes. The remainder aren't BMA members. We don't know if they'll be affected by the changes.
Out of that 37,000, 76% (28,305) returned a valid ballot paper and of those 98% (27,741) said they were prepared to take part in strike action. So it's not right either to say it's "98% of balloted Junior Doctors", as a Facebook graphic puts it: about 75% of all those balloted voted to strike.
That doesn't mean the rest don't support the strike, just that we don't know what their views are.
Which ever way you slice it and the figures I have used are from the BMA, it still is a massive vote for the strike action.
The DOH have tried to say it was less by subtracting others and assuming those not in the BMA did not support the action, but no one knows what their views were.
From all I have read, the only Doctors who were working were those which it had been agreed would work, by the BMA. My daughter and her friends know of none who went in, so where Hunt got his 40% were in work figure from only he knows.
We can argue on here, but the only ones who know the true figures will be the BMA and the DOH and somewhere between what they claim is the truth. I would favour the BMA figures.
28/53 - you can probably work out the percentage yourself.
The 'semantics' of assertions like this are critical to the soundbite-lead public perception of the issues.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff