IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Yes, we do.  Ashie said at the last briefing that people on hospital who have tested positive do not drop off the figure at 10 days. 

It depends whether you trust Ashford to tell the full truth or not.   Let's be honest he hasn't exactly had a 100% record so far - he's a tendency to say something ambiguous and hope people assume something else.  That's if it's not some complete nonsense he's misremembered and then pretends he never said.  The statement that was eventually issued can be read in several ways (what does 'receiving treatment' mean for example) and we are entitled to be a bit sceptical.

He promised figures to resolve this last week, but nothing has appeared as yet.  Either the numbers or so large they are still counting or they are busy trying to minimise them.  And I don't buy this thing about it being 'difficult' to tell is someone is suffering from Covid or something else.  If it's uncertain, you include them.  Even if the main cause for admission is something else and Covid has merely worsened their condition enough to make them need hospitalisation for it, then they are there because of Covid.

We've seen too many examples recently of changes to the way data are displayed and calculated which have been designed to blur things that we can't really grant them much leeway on this.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

20 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It depends whether you trust Ashford to tell the full truth or not.   Let's be honest he hasn't exactly had a 100% record so far - he's a tendency to say something ambiguous and hope people assume something else.  That's if it's not some complete nonsense he's misremembered and then pretends he never said.  The statement that was eventually issued can be read in several ways (what does 'receiving treatment' mean for example) and we are entitled to be a bit sceptical.

He promised figures to resolve this last week, but nothing has appeared as yet.  Either the numbers or so large they are still counting or they are busy trying to minimise them.  And I don't buy this thing about it being 'difficult' to tell is someone is suffering from Covid or something else.  If it's uncertain, you include them.  Even if the main cause for admission is something else and Covid has merely worsened their condition enough to make them need hospitalisation for it, then they are there because of Covid.

We've seen too many examples recently of changes to the way data are displayed and calculated which have been designed to blur things that we can't really grant them much leeway on this.

It's almost like they're a bunch of COVID deniers. If Ashford's mate can get it 4 times it's obviously not that serious... ... .. .. . . 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It depends whether you trust Ashford to tell the full truth or not.   Let's be honest he hasn't exactly had a 100% record so far - he's a tendency to say something ambiguous and hope people assume something else.  That's if it's not some complete nonsense he's misremembered and then pretends he never said.  The statement that was eventually issued can be read in several ways (what does 'receiving treatment' mean for example) and we are entitled to be a bit sceptical.

He promised figures to resolve this last week, but nothing has appeared as yet.  Either the numbers or so large they are still counting or they are busy trying to minimise them.  And I don't buy this thing about it being 'difficult' to tell is someone is suffering from Covid or something else.  If it's uncertain, you include them.  Even if the main cause for admission is something else and Covid has merely worsened their condition enough to make them need hospitalisation for it, then they are there because of Covid.

We've seen too many examples recently of changes to the way data are displayed and calculated which have been designed to blur things that we can't really grant them much leeway on this.

Yes, you are right, he does tend to make statements that are often not up to close scrutiny.  It may be a lack of understanding on his part.

Seems the dashboard was broken again today.  Is it really that technically temperamental? 

[The Old Git]

56 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

If Ashford's mate can get it 4 times

Do we believe that? What the hell is he doing to get it four times?

[TheTeapot]

1 minute ago, The Old Git said:

Do we believe that? What the hell is he doing to get it four times?

No one believes it because it isn't true 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

No one believes it because it isn't true 

Are you insinuating that David Ashford MBE is a liar? 

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, you are right, he does tend to make statements that are often not up to close scrutiny.  It may be a lack of understanding on his part.

Seems the dashboard was broken again today.  Is it really that technically temperamental? 

There's clearly a movement to try to make things looks serious - reducing the automatic recovery period is one, but the decision to suddenly start calculating the positive result rate cumulative from February (rather than on a daily basis) was the most blatant.  I doubt Ashford came up with these dodges, but I suspect he made it clear that he wanted things to look better and must have approved them.

Of course the root of this, as with so much else that has gone wrong over the last 18 months lies with the insistence of Quayle and Ashford on leading the communications the whole time (I suspect this comes more from Quayle originally).  So it's all been about spin rather than  accuracy or clarity. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

Oh wow! Some light reading before bed:

On 26th May 2021, the Public Accounts Committee, a standing Committee of Tynwald, took oral evidence in private from Dr Rosalind Ranson, Medical Director of the Department of Health and Social Care.

The evidence session was held as part of the Committee’s inquiries into matters relating to the pandemic.

At its final meeting, the Committee agreed that it would publish the evidence, with Dr Ranson’s consent, along with a copy of the DHSC’s response to the evidence.

A report containing the evidence can be found here and will be laid before Tynwald in October 2021.

The Chair of the Committee, Hon. Juan Watterson SHK, commented “This adds to the growing body of evidence taken by the Committee at the heart of the Covid response; it raises interesting questions, and we have had some useful early answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. There is no doubt that this is something that the next administration will need to focus on as outlined in our annual report.”

The members of the Public Accounts Committee are Hon. Juan Watterson SHK (Chair), Mr Lawrie Hooper MHK (Vice-Chair), Mrs Jane Poole Wilson MLC, Mrs Clare Barber MHK, Ms Julie Edge MHK and Mr Chris Robertshaw MHK. Mrs Barber, as a political Member for the Department of Health and Social Care, did not attend the evidence session.

[TheTeapot]

8 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Are you insinuating that David Ashford MBE is a liar? 

Nope, I'm straight up calling him one.

[The Voice of Reason]

50 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, you are right, he does tend to make statements that are often not up to close scrutiny.  It may be a lack of understanding on his part.

Or a lack of understanding on your part. 
 

Have we really got to the stage when a Government minister  feels it necessary to correct misinformation on social media?

I will say on this occasion David Ashford has got it wrong. He should have maintained a dignified silence.

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Have we really got to the stage when a Government minister  feels it necessary to correct misinformation on social media?

 

We've been at the stage where a government minister spreads misinformation himself.

[AlanShimmin]

4 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Have we really got to the stage when a Government minister  feels it necessary to correct misinformation on social media?

Not sure, Tim. But you've been doing it on here for a while.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, AlanShimmin said:

Not sure, Tim. But you've been doing it on here for a while.

But not on the official Government website

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Or a lack of understanding on your part. 
 

Have we really got to the stage when a Government minister  feels it necessary to correct misinformation on social media?

I will say on this occasion David Ashford has got it wrong. He should have maintained a dignified silence.

The Minister was answering a question from the press, IIRC.  Either way, he should give clear and unambiguous answers.

You seem to take the view that Ministers are beyond reproach and should be held in deferential and unquestioning respect by the electorate.

However, these are the 7 principles of public life:-

Openness

Integrity

Accountability

Leadership

Objectivity

Selflessness

Honesty

That is the code which they sign up to. Note accountability - they are accountable and who is to take them to account but the electorate? 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

 

You seem to take the view that Ministers are beyond reproach and should be held in deferential and unquestioning respect by the electorate.

 

Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Being called a liar is quite a different matter.