Apple Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Given that the figures were known earlier in the day the question is why do this. Sure, it sounds like Tynwald members had been forewarned as per Paul Moulton's comments but apart from softening the blow in tomorrows Tynwald statement then what other purpose does it serve. 4 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said: When another group have already been given a much higher figure, this leads to a perception of dishonesty or poor organisation. Neither is good when you want the confidence of the people you lead and represent. Totally agree. It is either one or the other. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 5 minutes ago, Apple said: Given that the figures were known earlier in the day the question is why do this. Sure, it sounds like Tynwald members had been forewarned as per Paul Moulton's comments but apart from softening the blow in tomorrows Tynwald statement then what other purpose does it serve. Totally agree. It is either one or the other. That is a good question, why? Possibly to avoid a contentious briefing, possibly to buy a bit of time to give thought to the strategy or spin? The triumvirate seem to be the figureheads in this, perhaps they should look to spread the load a bit more, not bear the full weight of public opinion themselves. Not by special guest appearances but more involvement of the Gold Team. They are feeling under pressure and it shows, but the daft thing is if they were more straightforward and open, the majority would be supportive because it is a really difficult situation without a manual and we understand that. But people are facing personal difficulties and would be reassured if those who are leading the charge were open, honest and without spin. We do not have to Have the best response compared to elsewhere but the best response for the IOM. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Layman Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 6 hours ago, The Old Git said: Howard just said “last and least” to Josh Stokes 😂 It was even more cringeworthy when Ashie stated that they don’t have the stats for who hasn’t turned up or refused a vaccination. Surely they know who they have sent letters to? All they have to do is keep a record of who has responded to said letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: They are feeling under pressure and it shows, True. Henrietta did not bargain for this when she applied for the job from off island. I think she thought it would be a cushier number than what she has ended up with. I remember her indicating her dismay at the lack of data being gathered when she first came over, not very impressed. She looks and sounds tired nowadays. Probablyly will look to retirement when this is over I reckon. (won't we all !) 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Just now, Apple said: True. Henrietta did not bargain for this when she applied for the job from off island. I think she thought it would be a cushier number than what she has ended up with. I remember her indicating her dismay at the lack of data being gathered when she first came over, not very impressed. She looks and sounds tired nowadays. Probablyly will look to retirement when this is over I reckon. (won't we all !) She was very forthright at first and highly critical if mortality data, I think. Sadly, that has been worn out of her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 25 minutes ago, Apple said: The 108 figure was known in Nobles this morning Which suggests they are still operating a day behind and these are the figures only from Sunday, rather than say a day and a bit. There's a minor but rather revealing slip in the figures. The number of new cases is announced as 110, but the actual increase from yesterday (757) to today (865) in only 108, exactly what Moulton said. Did they change the number of new cases so they could claim that the previous figure had been just an approximation? When they knew it was accurate and they were just concealing it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 1 minute ago, Gladys said: She was very forthright at first and highly critical if mortality data, I think. Thats right. It was at the PAC committee iirc. Stood up to DA there as well. Times change... 9 minutes ago, Peter Layman said: It was even more cringeworthy when Ashie stated that they don’t have the stats for who hasn’t turned up or refused a vaccination. Surely they know who they have sent letters to? All they have to do is keep a record of who has responded to said letter I don't think they would like to publish that data if they have it (it wouldn't take too long to calculate) but there will come a point when they will need to know to start winding down the vaccination regimes and reducing the ordering of vaccines to meet need. And stop paying overtime at weekends civil servants on the 111 line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said: Which suggests they are still operating a day behind and these are the figures only from Sunday, rather than say a day and a bit. There's a minor but rather revealing slip in the figures. The number of new cases is announced as 110, but the actual increase from yesterday (757) to today (865) in only 108, exactly what Moulton said. Did they change the number of new cases so they could claim that the previous figure had been just an approximation? When they knew it was accurate and they were just concealing it. If I were looking for an explanation, and if I were seeking a way out of a hole, it may have been prudent to have a slightly higher number than that revealed. On the face of it, it could support my explanation of the not the final days figures, waiting for confirmation etc etc ! Of course one would need the cunning then to alter the supporting data too! Of course none of the above may apply too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Did they change the number of new cases so they could claim that the previous figure had been just an approximation? When they knew it was accurate and they were just concealing it. But again, what would be the reason for altering the figures. I think it has something to do with what they are planning to announce in Tynwald tomorrow the more I think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Nothing. Its Keys tomorrow. Tynwald is next week. There may be a statement but big policy announcements would be via Tynwald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Just now, piebaps said: Nothing. Its Keys tomorrow. Tynwald is next week. There may be a statement but big policy announcements would be via Tynwald. He (HQ) is giving his big roadmap speech tomorrow isn't he? https://twitter.com/IOMGovernment/status/1368958522780684288 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 1 minute ago, TheTeapot said: He (HQ) is giving his big roadmap speech tomorrow isn't he? https://twitter.com/IOMGovernment/status/1368958522780684288 Shite - yes, my bad. https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/opqp/2021-PP-0051.pdf Apologies, lucky PM's not watching 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: 8 minutes ago, piebaps said: Nothing. Its Keys tomorrow. Tynwald is next week. There may be a statement but big policy announcements would be via Tynwald. He (HQ) is giving his big roadmap speech tomorrow isn't he? https://twitter.com/IOMGovernment/status/1368958522780684288 Apologies - yes it is the statement tomorrow. Just been reading the NHS road map but cannot link it. (published 22 .Feb 2021.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 We'll call it Howard's big release - just for Roxanne's weird crush purposes 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 10 minutes ago, asitis said: If I were looking for an explanation, and if I were seeking a way out of a hole, it may have been prudent to have a slightly higher number than that revealed. On the face of it, it could support my explanation of the not the final days figures, waiting for confirmation etc etc ! Of course one would need the cunning then to alter the supporting data too! I think it's just face-saving at this stage and trying to pretend that Ashford's garbled and dishonest answer was somehow meaningful. I suspect the civil servants might be less willing to alter the cumulative totals because I think that is the figure that gets formally reported to WHO, which is why they don't reset it to zero. (The NZ media releases always used to make this point about having to report every case to WHO, even the managed isolation ones that hadn't been in the community). So they might not want to fix an 'official' statistic, rather than something in a media statement. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.