IOM Covid removing restrictions

[thesultanofsheight]

59 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Maybe you hoped that even though you provided the link, you thought people wouldn't read it because it's the mail and you could get away with a MASSIVE headline that doesn't represent things properly? You don't have an agenda there do you? You're not purposefully spreading fake news? No, you can't be doing that. An honest mistake it must be.

Or maybe I just cut and pasted it exactly as it appeared in the link? No need to go off on some conspiracy nonsense. If you look at the link and look what I reproduced it’s an exact cut and paste from the page you land on. Or was at the time. I’d suggest if it’s now different the DM changed the headline after I grabbed the text last night probably because a load of people like you complained it wasn’t negative enough. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[TheTeapot]

Spot the difference

Lockdown 'could kill 75,000 over five years' - that's the OFFICIAL projection of non-COVID deaths caused by missed cancer diagnoses, cancelled operations and health impacts of a recession. The virus death toll? 42,000

[thesultanofsheight]

6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Spot the difference

Lockdown 'could kill 75,000 over five years' - that's the OFFICIAL projection of non-COVID deaths caused by missed cancer diagnoses, cancelled operations and health impacts of a recession. The virus death toll? 42,000

They changed the headline then after I grabbed the text. No great conspiracy. As I said a load of people like you probably moaned that the headline wasn’t negative enough so they must have changed it after it went up. No great conspiracy as it said. No need to go off on one as I said. When I posted it it was a straight cut and paste from the DM headline I didn’t even change the typeface to normal text. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[TheTeapot]

I'll take your word for it.

[TheTeapot]

Do you think it makes a difference?

It's been a common complaint for years really, headline writers changing the tone of articles. And in today's instant gratification world, where everyone scrolls headlines are probably more important than ever. I think those words completely change how that article looks.

[Banker]

Looks like public are biggest policer of restrictions!

https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/over-90-reports-of-covid-breaches-in-eight-weeks/

[Roger Mexico]

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Do you think it makes a difference?

It's been a common complaint for years really, headline writers changing the tone of articles. And in today's instant gratification world, where everyone scrolls headlines are probably more important than ever. I think those words completely change how that article looks.

And of course most people would, like TSOS, have read the headline before the Mail put in the qualification and so got a worse impression.  Then they change things so it looks more respectable.  Usually you find that if such qualifications exist in the article they are put in the last paragraph or so, because they know only a minority of readers (maybe 30%?) will read right to the end.

Edited to add: The Mail piece now says:

PUBLISHED: 22:00 BST, 25 September 2020 | UPDATED: 08:11 BST, 26 September 2020

which suggests it was altered this morning.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Roger Mexico

[P.K.]

44 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Two issues PJ:

1. Anecdotal evidence is useful if it throws up something unexpected that can then be subjected to gathering emprical evidence to explain the cause.

2. You continue to make this a political matter which closes off consideration of information that does not follow your political leaning. 

It's not a political matter.

On your first point most research starts with anecdotal data that you then go on to collate because right at the beginning EVERY bit of data is considered unproven. Sure you can and do get commonsense pointers but you can't hang labels on them until you do the drilling.

On your second point the only politics in the whole sorry mess of the pandemic that I can see is the awarding of very lucative tenders to tory donors and cronies.

The facts of the matter are that they have made a complete mess of just about everything. So it's not about political decisions, apart from the above, it's all about the decisions made to deal with the pandemic. Or not. As in this case.

[thesultanofsheight]

22 minutes ago, Banker said:

Looks like public are biggest policer of restrictions!

https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/over-90-reports-of-covid-breaches-in-eight-weeks/

There’s some right miserable fucks out there trying to drop people in the shit. It’s starting to feel like you live in Russia. All this power in the hands of nosy neighbours and general shit stirrers because we can’t pay people who work for government to come up with a more effective, targeted and proactive Covid response. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[dilligaf]

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

There’s some right miserable fucks out there trying to drop people in the shit. It’s starting to feel like you live in Russia. All this power in the hands of nosy neighbours and general shit stirrers because we can’t pay people who work for government to come up with a more effective, targeted and proactive Covid response. 

Is that tongue in cheak?

Edited September 26, 2020 by dilligaf

[thesultanofsheight]

25 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Edited to add: The Mail piece now says:

PUBLISHED: 22:00 BST, 25 September 2020 | UPDATED: 08:11 BST, 26 September 2020

which suggests it was altered this morning.

Thanks that was clear to me. I grabbed the text around midnight last night. 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It's not a political matter.

On your first point most research starts with anecdotal data that you then go on to collate because right at the beginning EVERY bit of data is considered unproven. Sure you can and do get commonsense pointers but you can't hang labels on them until you do the drilling.

On your second point the only politics in the whole sorry mess of the pandemic that I can see is the awarding of very lucative tenders to tory donors and cronies.

The facts of the matter are that they have made a complete mess of just about everything. So it's not about political decisions, apart from the above, it's all about the decisions made to deal with the pandemic. Or not. As in this case.

Re anecdotal evidence  - you have just repeated what I said but with more words. People are seeing and hearing lots of anecdotal evidence and what most want is for some definitive information on how to interpret it,  how it is impacting and whether it indicates a different approach.  

Re politicising - I think you have put up very politically biased posts, accusing people who disagree with your position  of right wing bias, constantly referring to Boris Johnson rather than the reported science behind this (continually calling him Bozo is indicative of your own political bias, btw). 

I watched the Labour Party's broadcast the other night supposedly in response to the Tory message of the previous day, hoping for some commentary on the new stats and measures, but all it amounted to was a message that Labour was ready to step in to lead the country. 

BTW, I suspect the approach of the Tory government is not sophisticated enough, but that is not because I am left or right wing, I just think it is inadequate.

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Re anecdotal evidence  - you have just repeated what I said but with more words. People are seeing and hearing lots of anecdotal evidence and what most want is for some definitive information on how to interpret it,  how it is impacting and whether it indicates a different approach.  

Just making the point that all data is anecdotal when you start.

In the case of the collateral damage caused by the pandemic as I posted previously folks are going to be disappointed if they think definitive numbers can be put around it. Hence it's a typical Daily Wail "story".

I make absolutely no secret of the fact I'm a liberal hence slightly left of centre. Of course, to the right wingers on here, by far the majority, my politics are Trotskyist or any other other nonsense they can dream up.

I have nothing but complete and utter contempt for Johnson. He goes on about "our success" with the pandemic when the reality is the UK has suffered really badly from it. So why does he say it? Because he has lied his way through his whole life, that's why.o

They had months to prepare but did nothing. Lack of PPE, lack of testing capability, lack of logistical support etc etc all avoidable and all added to the death toll.

I lost a dear friend to the virus and I know who is to blame....

[doc.fixit]

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Re anecdotal evidence  - you have just repeated what I said but with more words. People are seeing and hearing lots of anecdotal evidence and what most want is for some definitive information on how to interpret it,  how it is impacting and whether it indicates a different approach.  

Re politicising - I think you have put up very politically biased posts, accusing people who disagree with your position  of right wing bias, constantly referring to Boris Johnson rather than the reported science behind this (continually calling him Bozo is indicative of your own political bias, btw). 

I watched the Labour Party's broadcast the other night supposedly in response to the Tory message of the previous day, hoping for some commentary on the new stats and measures, but all it amounted to was a message that Labour was ready to step in to lead the country. 

BTW, I suspect the approach of the Tory government is not sophisticated enough, but that is not because I am left or right wing, I just think it is inadequate.

I agree with you.

Do you think any govt's response was adequate?

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, doc.fixit said:

I agree with you.

Do you think any govt's response was adequate?

Germany.