IOM Covid removing restrictions

[madmanxpilot]

2 minutes ago, Banker said:

Update on amenity sites 

https://gef.im/gef/amenity-sites-joint-statement1?fbclid=IwAR3bFuBsF0g0-Kh8pee-8YTN_k4eu6vI97JFA6R096_4MQDiRRwRwbI9Gs4

It's reassuring to see that the scientists at the tip are monitoring infection rates before making any further decisions.

[Barlow]

49 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Ha, ha.

First, we don’t all litigate so it’s not a binary, either or, 50%.

In fact only about 10-15% of us litigate 

Second, even in litigation

a. There are cases with more than two parties, more than one may win, or lose.

b. If I represent a client being sued for £100 and defend that down to £50, isn’t that a win? Or if it’s a criminal case and there’s a conviction but I keep client out of prison, isn’t that a win.

ALWAYS DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

 

Ha, ha back.

Thanks for the rise John, and for the erm, explanation.

I'm so glad you thought I thought my post was literal.

[The Old Git]

3 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Never-ending attention to the dull boring details is essential.

We’ve no chance then

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by The Old Git

[rachomics]

39 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I’m looking forward to the report but I wish Dr Glover did her work quietly in the background and then presented her findings, rather than announce to the world she’s going to look at the genomic tracing, it loses its effectiveness.

The only reference I've made to looking at the data was on here the other night. I've not announced anything to the world that I'd do a report and then publish it online. Jesus, it's going to be enough of a battle to get access to the data.

[Barlow]

1 hour ago, Pipsqueak said:

but we  need common sense and practical ,   plenty of folks with ologys that can't tie their own shoe laces.

There was a Doctor chap speaking on Radio 4 yesterday. He was a big Liverpool supporter all his life.

OK, it was early days, but when the decision was made to allow Liverpool to play Atletico Madrid last year the advisors to the Government on Covid based their decision on the basis that the visiting fans would arrive at Anfield watch the match and go home.

A huge part of football, especially international football isn't erm, the football. It's the visiting a new country, a new city, the pubs, the restaurants etc . This wasn't allowed for. The rest is history. I suppose it is a bit like Cheltenham horse races. Arrive, put on a bet, watch the races, go home. The big part of Cheltenham, and most horse racing, is the mega piss-up.

A bit like the pubs on the Isle of Man are frequented by saddos shuffling in and nursing a pint on their own for a few hours. At best a handful of folk murdering I Will Survive on the Karaoke machine.

Qualifications are fine, but sometimes circumstances require a wee bit more university of life.

 

[John Wright]

33 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

A professional lifetime working on the design and development of military and avionics system - all safety critical systems. If a broad experience counts, I have worked in England, Germany and Italy - and have noted significant differences in cultural approach to problems in all three countries.

Ewart qualified as a medical doctor years ago. I assume, I hope, that her licence to practice has expired. I am not impressed by people who wave around titles that are no longer meaningful. I would have no regard for someone who claims to be an airline pilot but who last flew a Vickers Viscount - and such a person would not be allowed to fly anyway, as their licence would have expired - no currency.

There are people who do that. Malcolm Couch qualified as a phycologist and worked for maybe 6 months, and then worked for 27 years in finance and tax - but still insisted on being addressed as Doctor. He now works in the tourist industry. But some people are nevertheless impressed by such things.

In my time I have worked with people with PhDs, but all had an education relevant to the industry. Their combination of natural-born ability, experience and relevant education made them valuable to the company. Someone going to a engineering company and saying "Hey, I've got a PhD in History, I can run your radar systems division" would be laughable.

I have no wish to start yet another Internet flame-war, but your question "What qualifications do you have?" is both foolish and arrogant. The implication is that I need qualifications before I can make a criticism of someone else - that's nonsense.

Ewart made a stupid statement to the press. I pointed that out. Ewart has qualifications that are irrelevant to the job she is doing. I also pointed that out. I believe it was not unreasonable for me to do that.

If the covid problem was being handled adequately, there would be no comment from me. From my personal experience, let alone the comments on the forum, there is a great deal of incompetence being thrown around. The people at the top, including Ewart, are responsible.

Having worked exclusively on safety critical projects, I assure you that having good ideas is not enough. Never-ending attention to the dull boring details is essential. You can't have an aircraft half-way over the Atlantic and the blue screen of death comes up. That attention to detail is just not happening here.

So yes, my lifetime experience designing complex systems and solving problems qualifies me to make a comment about Ewart's abilities. And sarcastic comments about her PhD (History) are definitely on-topic. By the way, Magson has a degree in music.

[And, in spite of its length, this is not another blog from Rob Callister]

 

She’s is, continues to be, and has been registered with the GMC for 30+ years, using her medical qualifications. It’s a pre requisite for appointment as Director of Public Health, ( Medical Officer of Health )

Do you have any idea what the exact field of history her MA and PhD might be? It’s possible to study a field of medical history, for instance in public health.*

Shes qualified to give expert advice, to call herself Dr ( both medical and by research ).

Im not sure, despite your rant, that your professional  lifetime in military and avionics systems, or my research/higher degree, qualifies either of us to dismiss her expertise just because she has a PhD in history. 

Some universities do, or did, BA degrees in science subjects.

As for Malcom Couch, a psychologist per se isn’t entitled to use Dr, unless, either, he’s qualified as a Dr of Medicine or has a PhD. 

Anyway whether she was wrong or not is a matter of opinion. And you can’t trash her medical expertise validly because she has a PhD in history. She advises. CoMin decides. We’ve no idea what her advice was.

The facts make your Viscount analogy a nonsense, and a PhD in history of radar would make your radar analogy a nonsense, also.

* I do know her MA research was in identity and community of Irish immigrants in Coventry and her PhD was on responses to mid-twentieth century Irish migration to Britain in both Ireland and Britain, both were done whilst she was working in public health.

[Apple]

24 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It was also the day the senior nurse at Nobles reported the truth of what was going on at Nobles. It was widely reported that day but has never been referred to after that day  

There is a lot to be said now for the clinical staff themselves to present the press briefings. Whilst respecting confidentiality I think they would be much better at explaining the circumstances of events rather than the accusations of political spin that the current approach brings.

I know we are currently awaiting the naming of the new appointment of Chief Nurse, or whatever the new title is, who could be well suited for that role, alongside the Medical Director. There are enough CEOs and Senior clinical Managers etc,  too many to count now, so why are they being prohibited from addressing the media and the public. 

Time to change the format now. Let's get some trust and confidence back. I want facts to assess the risks to me and mine myself now, no more spin.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Apple
typo

[horatiotheturd]

Anyone else feel this is a little tastless for such a sad story, or am I just getting overly sensitive?

 

[Barlow]

33 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

This is why John is an advocate and Barlow isn’t. 

I can smell your obsequiousness from here

[Boris Johnson]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Ha, ha.

 

b. If I represent a client being sued for £100 and defend that down to £50, isn’t that a win?

 

No, its a loss John, you are forgetting you will have charged him £300 in the first place     😉

[Apple]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Anyway whether she was wrong or not is a matter of opinion. And you can’t trash her medical expertise validly because she has a PhD in history. She advises. CoMin decides. We’ve no idea what her advice was.

Correct. See my post above, we need to see what some of that clinical information might be, and from the different sources. Information from clinical staff on the ground at the front line would be welcome.

At the end of the day, the best CoMiN can do is base decisions on their own judgement and opinion, and apart from Dr Allinson, GP, they are as gifted and qualified as the rest of us.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

She’s is, continues to be, and has been registered with the GMC for 30+ years, using her medical qualifications. It’s a pre requisite for appointment as Director of Public Health, ( Medical Officer of Health )

Do you have any idea what the exact field of history her MA and PhD might be? It’s possible to study a field of medical history, for instance in public health.

Shes qualified to give expert advice, to call herself Dr ( both medical and by research ).

Im not sure, despite your rant, that your professional  lifetime in military and avionics systems, or my research/higher degree, qualifies either of us to dismiss her expertise just because she has a PhD in history. 

Some universities do, or did, BA degrees in science subjects.

As for Malcom Couch, a psychologist per se isn’t entitled to use Dr, unless, either, he’s qualified as a Dr of Medicine or has a PhD. 

Anyway whether she was wrong or not is a matter of opinion. And you can’t trash her medical expertise validly because she has a PhD in history. She advises. CoMin decides. We’ve no idea what her advice was.

Her PhD was on Irish migration in the 19th century I think.

[Banker]

5 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Anyone else feel this is a little tastless for such a sad story, or am I just getting overly sensitive?

 

Yes it’s tasteless and insensitive, no one knows full story other than family 

[Apple]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

With the greatest respect, with the information to hand, I could go up there and present it to the people for dissemination. It’s what I once did.

Your knowledge and experience are clear from your posts, respect, and no doubt you would do a much better job than what we have been getting.

My point is that we employ and pay (millions) for lots senior clinically qualified people who are not directly contributing to the public information despite what is says in their job description or professional codes of conduct.

it happened in the beginning Wirth even the mental health director contributing )although funnily enough the Chief Operating Officer never did and I thought that would have been well within that remit). The infection control nurse did one as well.

I know personally some clinical proposals have been rebuffed at various stages that in hindsight were sensible ideas. 

Why were they all stopped. Could the message not be controlled enough ?

Bring them back to the fore David. You and Quayle can still handle the press.

[manxman34]

37 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Ha, ha back.

Thanks for the rise John, and for the erm, explanation.

I'm so glad you thought I thought my post was literal.

Doubt anyone thought it was 'literal' - just stupid