Skemerkelkresepte, spiritualieë en plaaslike kroeë

Oranje pryse neem toe namate Florida die ergste oeskrisis in 'n eeu in die gesig staar

Oranje pryse neem toe namate Florida die ergste oeskrisis in 'n eeu in die gesig staar

Oranje bome verwoes deur siektes en orkane

In die lig van swak oeste, het sommige boere heeltemal opgehou om lemoene te verbou.

Dinge lyk nie so helder vir die oranje oes in die Sunshine State.

Florida is te midde van 'die ergste oranje oeskrisis' in 'n eeu, met rekords wat teruggaan tot 1913, en gevolglik styg pryse, Die voog gerapporteer.

Lemoenbome is deur siektes en orkane doodgemaak. Die Amerikaanse departement van landbou het voorspel dat hierdie jaar se oes 70 miljoen bokse lemoene sou oplewer - 'n daling van 14 persent teenoor verlede jaar en ver van meer 'oorvloedige dae' toe meer as 230 miljoen bokse jaarliks ​​geproduseer word.

Die oorsprong van hierdie probleme het in 2005 begin, toe 'n bakterie wat "veroorsaak dat vrugte vroegtydig val en uiteindelik die [oranje] bome doodmaak" in die suide van Florida gevind is. Die siekte is daarna versprei deur Asiatiese sitruspsylliede, wat die siekte oordra, en deur orkane oor Florida versprei.

"Boere gee heeltemal op met lemoene," sê Judith Ganes, president van die kommoditeitsnavorsingsfirma J Ganes Consulting. 'Normaalweg sou die produsente na 'n vries of 'n orkaan [wat albei baie bome doodmaak] 100% van hul plante herplant. Maar die siekte is oral deur orkane versprei, en dit het dit heeltemal onbeheerbaar gemaak. Boere gee op en wend hulle tot ander gewasse of gee grond oor na behuising. ”


Gepubliseer: 00:12 BST, 1 Junie 2021 | Opgedateer: 02:52 BST, 1 Junie 2021

Ek wag vir 'n brief van my huisdokter se operasie waarin ek vra of ek toestemming gee dat my mediese data na 'n nasionale databasis gelaai word en aan navorsers beskikbaar gestel word, maar dit lyk nie of dit gaan kom nie.

Eintlik sal ek nie verbaas wees as daar miljoene mense in Brittanje is wat nie daarvan bewus is dat hulle gesondheidsrekords 'n week later bygevoeg sal word by 'n NHS Digital -databasis, tensy hulle formeel beswaar maak teen 23 Junie. gedeel, in anonieme vorm, met universiteite, farmaseutiese maatskappye en tegnologieondernemings.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale begin het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas het.

Aangesien ons die afgelope 15 maande ontmoedig is om persoonlik met ons huisartse afsprake te maak, wonder ek hoeveel mense al ooit so 'n plakkaat gesien het. Ek kan dit beslis nie onthou nie.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp. Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom het ek min hoop om dit te beveg

Die NHS sê ook dat u kan uitskakel om u gesondheidsrekords te deel via die NHS-app-die pre-Covid-app wat dit in 2018 bekendgestel het om mense te help om afsprake te bespreek en advies te kry oor gesondheidstoestande.

Maar as u die persoon is wat bekommerd is oor die misbruik van persoonlike data, is die kans groot dat u nie by die NHS -app of inderdaad enige app aangesluit het nie, aangesien apps in die algemeen blykbaar uitgebreide toestelle is om ons persoonlike data te versamel.

Moet ek 'n brief aan my operasie stuur om my data privaat te hou? Ek is nogal in konflik.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp.

Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg.

Sonder dat farmaseutiese ondernemings persoonlike inligting oor simptome en newe-effekte kan bestudeer, sou ons nie nou die entstowwe hê wat die siekte help verslaan nie.

Ons sou ook nie agtergekom het dat deksametason die sterftesyfer by hospitaalpasiënte verlaag nie.

Baie ander mediese deurbrake is ook afhanklik van epidemiologiese studies wat die verwerking van groot hoeveelhede persoonlike mediese data vereis.

As u dink aan die mediese vooruitgang wat ons in die afgelope generasie gebaat het, is dit 'n geringe prys om te betaal om anonieme data oor u knolle en die ligte pyn in u linkeroor te deel.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas

Tog is daar 'n groot verskil tussen byvoorbeeld 'n dwelmproef en wat NHS Digital voorstel.

Dwelmproewe werk saam met vrywilligers wat aktief die besluit geneem het om aan 'n stuk mediese navorsing deel te neem. Hulle weet dat hul persoonlike inligting sal bydra tot 'n studie wat gepubliseer sal word vir almal om te lees.

As dit kom by die ontwikkeling van 'n Covid -inenting, het groot getalle vrywillig geword - nie net om hul data te deel nie, maar om ingespuit te word met 'n onbewese entstof.

Dit is 'n ander saak om 'n databasis te bou wat ons persoonlike data bevat sonder 'n spesifieke doel. Sulke data het 'n groot kommersiële waarde, en daar is kommer dat dit uiteindelik vir byvoorbeeld bemarkingsdoeleindes gebruik kan word.

Die feit dat data geanonimiseer word, bied min troos. Om 'n voorbeeld te neem van die potensiaal van hierdie data, kan dit byvoorbeeld sê dat u poskode 'n hoë vetsug het en kan gebruik word om u en u bure te adverteer met advertensies vir verslankingshulpmiddels.

Meer ernstig, was die versekeringsbedryf in staat om hierdie soort data in die hande te kry, wat dit kan gebruik om sekere poskodes vir lewensversekering te swartlys?

Die inligting wat u aan u huisdokter gegee het oor u drinkgewoontes of u depressie, kan - in elk geval in teorie - u weer byt in die vorm van hoër versekeringspremies of u verhinder om 'n verband te kry.

NHS Digital weerlê enige suggestie dat die data op hierdie manier gebruik kan word. Dit bevat 'n 'mite-afbrekende' dokument waarin gesê word dat 'ons verkoop nie gesondheids- en sorgdata' en 'ons deel nie data met bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye nie'.

Dit is nie baie gerusstellend nie. Skeptici sal reeds opgemerk het dat dit die huidige tyd gebruik - dit beloof nie dat ons data in die toekoms nie aan kommersiële belange verkoop sal word nie.

Boonop sê dit nie dat ons data nie met ander organisasies as bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye gedeel sal word nie.

Die hele doel van die databasis is inderdaad om data te versamel sodat dit gebruik kan word vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe medisyne en behandelings.

Farmaseutiese ondernemings en dies meer moet toegang tot die data hê, anders het dit geen sin om dit te versamel nie.

As dit op hierdie punte uitgedaag word, kom NHS Digital 'n bietjie meer voor. Dit is volgens die wet verbied om pasiëntdata te verkoop. Tog erken dit dat private ondernemings baie baat by produkte wat ontwikkel is met behulp van data wat gratis met hulle gedeel word.

Uit die oogpunt van die pasiënt lyk dit die ergste van albei wêrelde: ons gebruik ons ​​data vir private wins, maar die NHS word nie van inkomste ontneem wat kan help om dienste te subsidieer nie.

Die ander regverdiging wat NHS Digital bied vir die opstel van 'n nasionale databasis van pasiënte se rekords, is skokkend.

Individuele huisartse se operasies deel reeds geanonimiseerde pasiëntrekords met kommersiële organisasies en doen dit al jare. Boonop mag hulle sulke ooreenkomste aangaan sonder om ons toestemming te vra-alhoewel hulle veronderstel is om ons 'n algemene opt-out te gee om ons data te deel.

Hoeveel mense is daarvan bewus?

Volgens my word die versameling van die data op een plek makliker om data-deelooreenkomste af te dwing, sodat die inligting nie misbruik word nie-die argument is dat NHS Digital die hulpbronne het om dit te doen waar individuele huisartse dit nie doen nie.

Tog wek die NHS se rekord oor data -oortredings nie veel vertroue nie. In 2012, byvoorbeeld, was iemand wat 'n tweedehandse rekenaar op die internet gekoop het, geskok toe hy agterkom dat die hardeskyf vertroulike data oor 3000 NHS-pasiënte bevat.

Dit blyk dat NHS Surrey 40 rekenaars verkoop het sonder om eers die hardeskywe te vernietig of die inligting daarop uit te vee.

Hierdie soort dinge gaan nog steeds aan: net verlede jaar het die NHS per ongeluk persoonlike data opgelaai oor 18,000 pasiënte wat positief getoets het vir Covid-19.


Gepubliseer: 00:12 BST, 1 Junie 2021 | Opgedateer: 02:52 BST, 1 Junie 2021

Ek wag vir 'n brief van my huisdokter se operasie waarin ek vra of ek toestemming gee dat my mediese data na 'n nasionale databasis gelaai word en aan navorsers beskikbaar gestel word, maar dit lyk nie of dit gaan kom nie.

Eintlik sal ek nie verbaas wees as daar miljoene mense in Brittanje is wat nie daarvan bewus is dat hulle gesondheidsrekords 'n week later bygevoeg sal word by 'n NHS Digital -databasis, tensy hulle formeel beswaar maak teen 23 Junie. gedeel, in anonieme vorm, met universiteite, farmaseutiese maatskappye en tegnologieondernemings.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale begin het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas het.

Aangesien ons die afgelope 15 maande ontmoedig is om persoonlik met ons huisartse afsprake te maak, wonder ek hoeveel mense al ooit so 'n plakkaat gesien het. Ek kan dit beslis nie onthou nie.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp. Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom het ek min hoop om dit te beveg

Die NHS sê ook dat u kan uitskakel om u gesondheidsrekords te deel via die NHS-app-die pre-Covid-app wat dit in 2018 bekendgestel het om mense te help om afsprake te bespreek en advies te kry oor gesondheidstoestande.

Maar as u die tipe persoon is wat bekommerd is oor die misbruik van persoonlike data, is die kans groot dat u nie by die NHS -app of inderdaad enige app aangesluit het nie, aangesien apps in die algemeen blykbaar uitgebreide toestelle is. om ons persoonlike data te versamel.

Moet ek 'n brief aan my operasie stuur om my data privaat te hou? Ek is nogal in konflik.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp.

Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg.

Sonder dat farmaseutiese ondernemings persoonlike inligting oor simptome en newe-effekte kan bestudeer, sou ons nie nou die entstowwe hê wat die siekte help verslaan nie.

Ons sou ook nie agtergekom het dat deksametason die sterftesyfer by pasiënte in die hospitaal verminder nie.

Baie ander mediese deurbrake was ook afhanklik van epidemiologiese studies wat die verwerking van groot hoeveelhede persoonlike mediese data vereis.

As u dink aan die mediese vooruitgang wat ons in die afgelope generasie gebaat het, is dit 'n klein prys om te betaal om anonieme data oor u knolle en die ligte pyn in u linkeroor te deel.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas

Tog is daar 'n groot verskil tussen byvoorbeeld 'n dwelmproef en wat NHS Digital voorstel.

Dwelmproewe werk saam met vrywilligers wat aktief die besluit geneem het om aan 'n stuk mediese navorsing deel te neem. Hulle weet dat hul persoonlike inligting sal bydra tot 'n studie wat gepubliseer sal word vir almal om te lees.

By die ontwikkeling van 'n Covid -inenting, het groot getalle vrywillig geword - nie net om hul data te deel nie, maar om ingespuit te word met 'n onbewese entstof.

Dit is 'n ander saak om 'n databasis te bou wat ons persoonlike data bevat sonder 'n spesifieke doel. Sulke data het 'n groot kommersiële waarde, en daar is kommer dat dit uiteindelik vir byvoorbeeld bemarkingsdoeleindes gebruik kan word.

Die feit dat data geanonimiseer word, bied min troos. Om 'n voorbeeld te neem van die potensiaal van hierdie data, kan dit byvoorbeeld sê dat u poskode 'n hoë vetsug het en kan gebruik word om u en u bure te adverteer met advertensies vir verslankingshulpmiddels.

Meer ernstig, was die versekeringsbedryf in staat om hierdie soort data in die hande te kry, wat dit kan gebruik om sekere poskodes vir lewensversekering te swartlys?

Die inligting wat u aan u huisdokter gegee het oor u drinkgewoontes of u depressie, kan - in elk geval in teorie - u weer byt in die vorm van hoër versekeringspremies of u verhinder om 'n verband te kry.

NHS Digital weerlê enige suggestie dat die data op hierdie manier gebruik kan word. Dit bevat 'n 'mite-afbrekende' dokument waarin gesê word dat 'ons verkoop nie gesondheids- en sorgdata' en 'ons deel nie data met bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye nie'.

Dit is nie baie gerusstellend nie. Skeptici sal reeds opgemerk het dat dit die huidige tyd gebruik - dit beloof nie dat ons data in die toekoms nie aan kommersiële belange verkoop sal word nie.

Boonop sê dit nie dat ons data nie met ander organisasies as bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye gedeel sal word nie.

Die hele doel van die databasis is inderdaad om data te versamel sodat dit gebruik kan word vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe medisyne en behandelings.

Farmaseutiese ondernemings en dies meer moet toegang tot die data hê, anders het dit geen sin om dit te versamel nie.

As dit op hierdie punte uitgedaag word, kom NHS Digital 'n bietjie meer voor. Dit is volgens die wet verbied om pasiëntdata te verkoop. Tog erken dit dat private ondernemings baie baat by produkte wat ontwikkel is met behulp van data wat gratis met hulle gedeel word.

Uit die oogpunt van die pasiënt lyk dit die ergste van albei wêrelde: ons gebruik ons ​​data vir private wins, maar die NHS word nie van inkomste ontneem wat kan help om dienste te subsidieer nie.

Die ander regverdiging wat NHS Digital bied vir die opstel van 'n nasionale databasis van pasiënte se rekords, is skokkend.

Individuele huisartse se operasies deel reeds geanonimiseerde pasiëntrekords met kommersiële organisasies en doen dit al jare. Boonop mag hulle sulke ooreenkomste aangaan sonder om ons toestemming te vra-alhoewel hulle veronderstel is om ons 'n algemene opt-out te gee om ons data te deel.

Hoeveel mense is daarvan bewus?

Volgens my word die data op een plek versamel, dit sal dit makliker maak om data-deelooreenkomste af te dwing sodat die inligting nie misbruik word nie-die argument is dat NHS Digital die hulpbronne het om dit te doen waar individuele huisartse nie operasies het nie.

Tog wek die NHS se rekord oor data -oortredings nie veel vertroue nie. In 2012, byvoorbeeld, was iemand wat 'n tweedehandse rekenaar op die internet gekoop het, geskok toe hy agterkom dat die hardeskyf vertroulike data oor 3000 NHS-pasiënte bevat.

Dit blyk dat NHS Surrey 40 rekenaars verkoop het sonder om eers die hardeskywe te vernietig of die inligting daarop uit te vee.

Hierdie soort dinge gaan nog steeds aan: net verlede jaar het die NHS per ongeluk persoonlike data opgelaai oor 18,000 pasiënte wat positief getoets het vir Covid-19.


Gepubliseer: 00:12 BST, 1 Junie 2021 | Opgedateer: 02:52 BST, 1 Junie 2021

Ek wag vir 'n brief van my huisdokter se operasie waarin ek vra of ek toestemming gee dat my mediese data na 'n nasionale databasis gelaai word en aan navorsers beskikbaar gestel word, maar dit lyk nie of dit gaan kom nie.

Eintlik sal ek nie verbaas wees as daar miljoene mense in Brittanje is wat nie daarvan bewus is dat hulle gesondheidsrekords 'n week later bygevoeg sal word by 'n NHS Digital -databasis, tensy hulle formeel beswaar maak teen 23 Junie. gedeel, in anonieme vorm, met universiteite, farmaseutiese maatskappye en tegnologieondernemings.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas.

Aangesien ons die afgelope 15 maande ontmoedig is om persoonlik met ons huisartse afsprake te maak, wonder ek hoeveel mense al ooit so 'n plakkaat gesien het. Ek kan dit beslis nie onthou nie.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp. Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg

Die NHS sê ook dat u kan uitskakel om u gesondheidsrekords te deel via die NHS-app-die pre-Covid-app wat dit in 2018 bekendgestel het om mense te help om afsprake te bespreek en advies te kry oor gesondheidstoestande.

Maar as u die persoon is wat bekommerd is oor die misbruik van persoonlike data, is die kans groot dat u nie by die NHS -app of inderdaad enige app aangesluit het nie, aangesien apps in die algemeen blykbaar uitgebreide toestelle is om ons persoonlike data te versamel.

Moet ek 'n brief aan my operasie stuur om my data privaat te hou? Ek is nogal in konflik.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp.

Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg.

Sonder dat farmaseutiese ondernemings persoonlike inligting oor simptome en newe-effekte kan bestudeer, sou ons nie nou die entstowwe hê wat die siekte help verslaan nie.

Ons sou ook nie agtergekom het dat deksametason die sterftesyfer by hospitaalpasiënte verlaag nie.

Baie ander mediese deurbrake is ook afhanklik van epidemiologiese studies wat die verwerking van groot hoeveelhede persoonlike mediese data vereis.

As u dink aan die mediese vooruitgang wat ons in die afgelope generasie gebaat het, is dit 'n klein prys om te betaal om anonieme data oor u knolle en die ligte pyn in u linkeroor te deel.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas

Tog is daar 'n groot verskil tussen byvoorbeeld 'n dwelmproef en wat NHS Digital voorstel.

Dwelmproewe werk saam met vrywilligers wat aktief die besluit geneem het om aan 'n stuk mediese navorsing deel te neem. Hulle weet dat hul persoonlike inligting sal bydra tot 'n studie wat gepubliseer sal word vir almal om te lees.

By die ontwikkeling van 'n Covid -inenting, het groot getalle vrywillig geword - nie net om hul data te deel nie, maar om ingespuit te word met 'n onbewese entstof.

Dit is 'n ander saak om 'n databasis te bou wat ons persoonlike data bevat sonder 'n spesifieke doel. Sulke data het 'n groot kommersiële waarde, en daar is kommer dat dit uiteindelik vir byvoorbeeld bemarkingsdoeleindes gebruik kan word.

Die feit dat data geanonimiseer word, bied min troos. Om 'n voorbeeld te neem van die potensiaal van hierdie data, kan dit byvoorbeeld sê dat u poskode 'n hoë vetsug het en kan gebruik word om u en u bure te adverteer met advertensies vir verslankingshulpmiddels.

Meer ernstig, was die versekeringsbedryf in staat om hierdie soort data in die hande te kry, wat dit kan gebruik om sekere poskodes vir lewensversekering op die swartlys te plaas?

Die inligting wat u aan u huisdokter gegee het oor u drinkgewoontes of u depressie, kan - in elk geval in teorie - u weer byt in die vorm van hoër versekeringspremies of u verhinder om 'n verband te kry.

NHS Digital weerlê enige suggestie dat die data op hierdie manier gebruik kan word. Dit bevat 'n 'mite-afbrekende' dokument waarin gesê word dat 'ons verkoop nie gesondheids- en sorgdata' en 'ons deel nie data met bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye nie'.

Dit is nie baie gerusstellend nie. Skeptici sal reeds opgemerk het dat dit die huidige tyd gebruik - dit beloof nie dat ons data in die toekoms nie aan kommersiële belange verkoop sal word nie.

Boonop sê dit nie dat ons data nie met ander organisasies as bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye gedeel sal word nie.

Die hele doel van die databasis is inderdaad om data te versamel sodat dit gebruik kan word vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe medisyne en behandelings.

Farmaseutiese ondernemings en dies meer moet toegang tot die data hê, anders het dit geen sin om dit te versamel nie.

As dit op hierdie punte uitgedaag word, kom NHS Digital 'n bietjie meer voor. Dit is volgens die wet verbied om pasiëntdata te verkoop. Tog erken dit dat private ondernemings baie baat by produkte wat ontwikkel is met behulp van data wat gratis met hulle gedeel word.

Uit die oogpunt van die pasiënt lyk dit die ergste van albei wêrelde: ons gebruik ons ​​data vir private wins, maar die NHS word nie van inkomste ontneem wat kan help om dienste te subsidieer nie.

Die ander regverdiging wat NHS Digital bied vir die opstel van 'n nasionale databasis van pasiënte se rekords, is skokkend.

Individuele huisartse se operasies deel reeds geanonimiseerde pasiëntrekords met kommersiële organisasies en doen dit al jare. Boonop mag hulle sulke ooreenkomste aangaan sonder om ons toestemming te vra-alhoewel hulle veronderstel is om ons 'n algemene opt-out te gee om ons data te deel.

Hoeveel mense is daarvan bewus?

Volgens my word die versameling van die data op een plek makliker om data-deelooreenkomste af te dwing, sodat die inligting nie misbruik word nie-die argument is dat NHS Digital die hulpbronne het om dit te doen waar individuele huisartse dit nie doen nie.

Tog wek die NHS se rekord oor data -oortredings nie veel vertroue nie. In 2012, byvoorbeeld, was iemand wat 'n tweedehandse rekenaar op die internet gekoop het, geskok toe hy agterkom dat die hardeskyf vertroulike data oor 3000 NHS-pasiënte bevat.

Dit blyk dat NHS Surrey 40 rekenaars verkoop het sonder om eers die hardeskywe te vernietig of die inligting daarop uit te vee.

Hierdie soort dinge gaan nog steeds aan: net verlede jaar het die NHS per ongeluk persoonlike data opgelaai oor 18,000 pasiënte wat positief getoets het vir Covid-19.


Gepubliseer: 00:12 BST, 1 Junie 2021 | Opgedateer: 02:52 BST, 1 Junie 2021

Ek wag vir 'n brief van my huisdokter se operasie waarin ek vra of ek toestemming gee dat my mediese data na 'n nasionale databasis gelaai word en aan navorsers beskikbaar gestel word, maar dit lyk nie of dit gaan kom nie.

Eintlik sal ek nie verbaas wees as daar miljoene mense in Brittanje is wat nie daarvan bewus is dat hulle gesondheidsrekords 'n week later bygevoeg sal word by 'n NHS Digital -databasis, tensy hulle formeel beswaar maak teen 23 Junie. gedeel, in anonieme vorm, met universiteite, farmaseutiese maatskappye en tegnologieondernemings.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas.

Aangesien ons die afgelope 15 maande ontmoedig is om persoonlik met ons huisartse afsprake te maak, wonder ek hoeveel mense al ooit so 'n plakkaat gesien het. Ek kan dit beslis nie onthou nie.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp. Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg

Die NHS sê ook dat u kan uitskakel om u gesondheidsrekords te deel via die NHS-app-die pre-Covid-app wat dit in 2018 bekendgestel het om mense te help om afsprake te bespreek en advies te kry oor gesondheidstoestande.

Maar as u die persoon is wat bekommerd is oor die misbruik van persoonlike data, is die kans groot dat u nie by die NHS -app of inderdaad enige app aangesluit het nie, aangesien apps in die algemeen blykbaar uitgebreide toestelle is om ons persoonlike data te versamel.

Moet ek 'n brief aan my operasie stuur om my data privaat te hou? Ek is nogal in konflik.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp.

Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom het ek min hoop om dit te beveg.

Sonder dat farmaseutiese ondernemings persoonlike inligting oor simptome en newe-effekte kan bestudeer, sou ons nie nou die entstowwe hê wat die siekte help verslaan nie.

Ons sou ook nie agtergekom het dat deksametason die sterftesyfer by pasiënte in die hospitaal verminder nie.

Baie ander mediese deurbrake is ook afhanklik van epidemiologiese studies wat die verwerking van groot hoeveelhede persoonlike mediese data vereis.

As u dink aan die mediese vooruitgang wat ons in die afgelope generasie gebaat het, is dit 'n klein prys om te betaal om anonieme data oor u knolle en die ligte pyn in u linkeroor te deel.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas

Tog is daar 'n groot verskil tussen byvoorbeeld 'n dwelmproef en wat NHS Digital voorstel.

Dwelmproewe werk saam met vrywilligers wat aktief die besluit geneem het om aan 'n stuk mediese navorsing deel te neem. Hulle weet dat hul persoonlike inligting sal bydra tot 'n studie wat gepubliseer sal word vir almal om te lees.

By die ontwikkeling van 'n Covid -inenting, het groot getalle vrywillig geword - nie net om hul data te deel nie, maar om ingespuit te word met 'n onbewese entstof.

Dit is 'n ander saak om 'n databasis te bou wat ons persoonlike data bevat sonder 'n spesifieke doel. Sulke data het 'n groot kommersiële waarde, en daar is kommer dat dit uiteindelik vir byvoorbeeld bemarkingsdoeleindes gebruik kan word.

Die feit dat data geanonimiseer word, bied min troos. Om 'n voorbeeld te neem van die potensiaal van hierdie data, kan dit byvoorbeeld sê dat u poskode 'n hoë vetsug het en kan gebruik word om u en u bure te adverteer met advertensies vir verslankingshulpmiddels.

Meer ernstig, was die versekeringsbedryf in staat om hierdie soort data in die hande te kry, wat dit kan gebruik om sekere poskodes vir lewensversekering te swartlys?

Die inligting wat u aan u huisdokter gegee het oor u drinkgewoontes of u depressie, kan - in elk geval in teorie - u weer byt in die vorm van hoër versekeringspremies of u verhinder om 'n verband te kry.

NHS Digital weerlê enige suggestie dat die data op hierdie manier gebruik kan word. Dit bevat 'n 'mite-afbrekende' dokument waarin gesê word dat 'ons verkoop nie gesondheids- en sorgdata' en 'ons deel nie data met bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye nie'.

Dit is nie baie gerusstellend nie. Skeptici sal reeds opgemerk het dat dit die huidige tyd gebruik - dit beloof nie dat ons data in die toekoms nie aan kommersiële belange verkoop sal word nie.

Boonop sê dit nie dat ons data nie met ander organisasies as bemarkings- en versekeringsmaatskappye gedeel sal word nie.

Die hele doel van die databasis is inderdaad om data te versamel sodat dit gebruik kan word vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe medisyne en behandelings.

Farmaseutiese ondernemings en dies meer moet toegang tot die data hê, anders het dit geen sin om dit te versamel nie.

As dit op hierdie punte uitgedaag word, kom NHS Digital 'n bietjie meer voor. Dit is volgens die wet verbied om pasiëntdata te verkoop. Tog erken dit dat private ondernemings baie baat by produkte wat ontwikkel is met behulp van data wat gratis met hulle gedeel word.

Uit die oogpunt van die pasiënt lyk dit die ergste van albei wêrelde: ons gebruik ons ​​data vir private wins, maar die NHS word nie van inkomste ontneem wat kan help om dienste te subsidieer nie.

Die ander regverdiging wat NHS Digital bied vir die opstel van 'n nasionale databasis van pasiënte se rekords, is skokkend.

Individuele huisartse se operasies deel reeds geanonimiseerde pasiëntrekords met kommersiële organisasies en doen dit al jare. Boonop mag hulle sulke ooreenkomste aangaan sonder om ons toestemming te vra-alhoewel hulle veronderstel is om ons 'n algemene opt-out te gee om ons data te deel.

Hoeveel mense is daarvan bewus?

Volgens my word die data op een plek versamel, dit sal dit makliker maak om data-deelooreenkomste af te dwing sodat die inligting nie misbruik word nie-die argument is dat NHS Digital die hulpbronne het om dit te doen waar individuele huisartse nie operasies het nie.

Tog wek die NHS se rekord oor data -oortredings nie veel vertroue nie. In 2012, byvoorbeeld, was iemand wat 'n tweedehandse rekenaar op die internet gekoop het, geskok toe hy agterkom dat die hardeskyf vertroulike data oor 3000 NHS-pasiënte bevat.

Dit blyk dat NHS Surrey 40 rekenaars verkoop het sonder om eers die hardeskywe te vernietig of die inligting daarop uit te vee.

Hierdie soort dinge gaan nog steeds aan: net verlede jaar het die NHS per ongeluk persoonlike data opgelaai oor 18,000 pasiënte wat positief getoets het vir Covid-19.


Gepubliseer: 00:12 BST, 1 Junie 2021 | Opgedateer: 02:52 BST, 1 Junie 2021

Ek wag op 'n brief van my huisarts se operasie waarin ek vra of ek toestemming gee dat my mediese data na 'n nasionale databasis gelaai word en aan navorsers beskikbaar gestel word, maar dit lyk nie of dit gaan kom nie.

Eintlik sal ek nie verbaas wees as daar miljoene mense in Brittanje is wat nie daarvan bewus is dat hulle gesondheidsrekords 'n week later bygevoeg sal word by 'n NHS Digital -databasis, tensy hulle formeel beswaar maak teen 23 Junie. gedeel, in anonieme vorm, met universiteite, farmaseutiese maatskappye en tegnologieondernemings.

Die NHS sê dit het probeer om mense bewus te maak van die stap sedert 2018 toe dit 'n plakkaatveldtog in operasies en hospitale geloods het - en die inligting op sy webwerf geplaas.

Aangesien ons die afgelope 15 maande ontmoedig is om persoonlik met ons huisartse afsprake te maak, wonder ek hoeveel mense al ooit so 'n plakkaat gesien het. Ek kan dit beslis nie onthou nie.

Die afgelope 15 maande het ons getoon hoe belangrik data -insameling is om 'n pandemie te bekamp. Sonder dat die NHS data kon versamel oor hoeveel mense besmet, in die hospitaal opgeneem en aan Covid-19 sterf, sou ons nie kon weet hoe die siekte versprei nie-en daarom is daar min hoop om dit te beveg

Die NHS sê ook dat u kan kies om nie u gesondheidsrekords te deel via die NHS-app nie-die pre-Covid-app wat dit in 2018 bekendgestel het om mense te help om afsprake te bespreek en advies te kry oor gesondheidstoestande.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Published: 00:12 BST, 1 June 2021 | Updated: 02:52 BST, 1 June 2021

I am waiting for a letter from my GP’s surgery asking me whether I consent to having my medical data uploaded on to a national database and made available to researchers, but it doesn’t seem it is going to come.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people in Britain who are unaware that, unless they formally object by June 23, then a week later their health records will be added to an NHS Digital database, which could then be shared, in anonymised form, with universities, pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website.

Given that we have been discouraged from face-to-face appointments with our GPs over the past 15 months, I wonder how many people have ever seen such a poster. I certainly can’t remember it.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic. Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it

The NHS also says that you can opt out of sharing your health records via the NHS app — the pre-Covid app it launched in 2018 to help people book appointments and access advice on health conditions.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Published: 00:12 BST, 1 June 2021 | Updated: 02:52 BST, 1 June 2021

I am waiting for a letter from my GP’s surgery asking me whether I consent to having my medical data uploaded on to a national database and made available to researchers, but it doesn’t seem it is going to come.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people in Britain who are unaware that, unless they formally object by June 23, then a week later their health records will be added to an NHS Digital database, which could then be shared, in anonymised form, with universities, pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website.

Given that we have been discouraged from face-to-face appointments with our GPs over the past 15 months, I wonder how many people have ever seen such a poster. I certainly can’t remember it.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic. Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it

The NHS also says that you can opt out of sharing your health records via the NHS app — the pre-Covid app it launched in 2018 to help people book appointments and access advice on health conditions.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Published: 00:12 BST, 1 June 2021 | Updated: 02:52 BST, 1 June 2021

I am waiting for a letter from my GP’s surgery asking me whether I consent to having my medical data uploaded on to a national database and made available to researchers, but it doesn’t seem it is going to come.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people in Britain who are unaware that, unless they formally object by June 23, then a week later their health records will be added to an NHS Digital database, which could then be shared, in anonymised form, with universities, pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website.

Given that we have been discouraged from face-to-face appointments with our GPs over the past 15 months, I wonder how many people have ever seen such a poster. I certainly can’t remember it.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic. Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it

The NHS also says that you can opt out of sharing your health records via the NHS app — the pre-Covid app it launched in 2018 to help people book appointments and access advice on health conditions.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Published: 00:12 BST, 1 June 2021 | Updated: 02:52 BST, 1 June 2021

I am waiting for a letter from my GP’s surgery asking me whether I consent to having my medical data uploaded on to a national database and made available to researchers, but it doesn’t seem it is going to come.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people in Britain who are unaware that, unless they formally object by June 23, then a week later their health records will be added to an NHS Digital database, which could then be shared, in anonymised form, with universities, pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website.

Given that we have been discouraged from face-to-face appointments with our GPs over the past 15 months, I wonder how many people have ever seen such a poster. I certainly can’t remember it.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic. Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it

The NHS also says that you can opt out of sharing your health records via the NHS app — the pre-Covid app it launched in 2018 to help people book appointments and access advice on health conditions.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Published: 00:12 BST, 1 June 2021 | Updated: 02:52 BST, 1 June 2021

I am waiting for a letter from my GP’s surgery asking me whether I consent to having my medical data uploaded on to a national database and made available to researchers, but it doesn’t seem it is going to come.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are millions of people in Britain who are unaware that, unless they formally object by June 23, then a week later their health records will be added to an NHS Digital database, which could then be shared, in anonymised form, with universities, pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website.

Given that we have been discouraged from face-to-face appointments with our GPs over the past 15 months, I wonder how many people have ever seen such a poster. I certainly can’t remember it.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic. Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it

The NHS also says that you can opt out of sharing your health records via the NHS app — the pre-Covid app it launched in 2018 to help people book appointments and access advice on health conditions.

But then if you are the sort of person who is worried about the misuse of personal data there is a strong chance you haven’t signed up for the NHS app or, indeed, any app — given that apps in general seem to be elaborate devices to harvest our personal data.

Should I send in a letter to my surgery asking it to keep my data private? I am quite conflicted.

The past 15 months have shown us the importance of data collection in fighting a pandemic.

Without the NHS being able to collect data on how many people are being infected, hospitalised and dying from Covid-19, we would have no way of knowing how the disease was spreading — and therefore little hope of fighting it.

Moreover, without pharmaceutical companies having the ability to study personal data on symptoms and side-effects we would not now have the vaccines which are helping to beat the disease.

Nor would we have found out that dexamethasone reduces the death rate in hospital patients.

Many other medical breakthroughs, too, have been reliant on epidemiological studies which require the processing of vast quantities of personal medical data.

When you think of the medical advances we have benefited from in the past generation alone, it seems a small price to pay to share anonymised data about your bunions and the slight pain in your left ear.

The NHS says it has tried to make people aware of the move since 2018 when it launched a poster campaign in surgeries and hospitals — and put the information on its website

Yet there is a big difference between, say, a drug trial and what NHS Digital is proposing.

Drug trials work with volunteers who have actively made the decision to participate in a piece of medical research. They know that their personal information is going to feed into a study which will be published for all to read.

When it comes to developing a Covid vaccination, for example, huge numbers volunteered — not just to share their data but to be injected with an unproven vaccine.

Building a database containing our personal data with no specific purpose is a different matter. Such data has huge commercial value, and there are concerns that it could end up being used for, say, marketing purposes.

The fact that data will be anonymised provides little comfort. To take one example of the potential of this data, it could identify, say, that your postcode had a high obesity rate and be used to target you and your neighbours with advertisements for slimming aids.

More seriously, were the insurance industry able to get hold of this sort of data it could be used to blacklist certain postcodes for life insurance.

The information that you had given your GP on your drinking habits or your depression could — in theory at any rate — come back to bite you in the form of higher insurance premiums or prevent you from getting a mortgage.

NHS Digital rebuts any suggestion that the data could be used in this way. It has put out what it calls a ‘myth-busting’ document stating that ‘We do not sell health and care data’ and ‘We do not share data with marketing and insurance companies’.

That is not very reassuring. Sceptics will already have noticed that it uses the present tense — it doesn’t promise that our data will not be sold to commercial interests in future.

Moreover, it doesn’t say that our data won’t be shared with organisations other than marketing and insurance companies.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the database is to collect data so that it might be used for developing new drugs and treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies and the like will have to be able to access the data, otherwise there would be no point in collecting it.

When challenged on these points, NHS Digital is a little more forthcoming. It is, it says, forbidden by law to sell patient data. Yet it admits that private companies might well profit from products developed using data that is shared with them for free.

From the patient’s point of view it seems the worst of both worlds: we get our data used for private profit, yet the NHS is deprived of any revenue which could help subsidise services.

The other justification which NHS Digital offers for setting up a national database of patients’ records is shocking.

Individual GPs surgeries are already sharing anonymised patient records with commercial organisations and have been doing so for years. Moreover, they are allowed to enter into such agreements without seeking our permission — although they are supposed to offer us a general opt-out from sharing our data.

How many people are aware of that?

Collecting the data in one place, I am told, will make it easier to enforce data-sharing agreements so that the information is not misused — the argument being that NHS Digital has the resources to do this where individual GPs surgeries do not.

Yet the NHS’s record on data breaches does not inspire much confidence. In 2012, for example, someone who bought a second-hand computer on the internet was shocked to find that the hard drive contained confidential data on 3,000 NHS patients.

In turned out that NHS Surrey had sold 40 computers without first destroying the hard drives or wiping the information on them.

This sort of thing is still going on: just last year the NHS accidentally uploaded personal data relating to 18,000 patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.


Kyk die video: Royal Blues Hotel 4 Stars Deerfield Beach Hotels, Florida (Januarie 2022).