Neil Down Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: So proclaims the troll who seems to be shouting in the mirror the most. It seems you won’t even accept the perfectly logical statements of Wrighty to interrupt your general barking at the covid moon. All you and others (?) are capable of doing is creating disruption and out and out trolling of people whose views differ to yours. I have used the confused emoji above again. I hope that’s not lighting the touch paper on another round of paranoid lunacy but honestly your pointless attempts to just fill up space on this forum while contributing absolutely zero to the debate really do confuse me. Oh the irony... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 30 minutes ago, Banker said: I was thinking that some people on here simply didn't understand risk and probabilities. Especially as I pointed out the infection rate in Manchester had doubled in a week which was met with a resounding "so what?" I thought the welders were a good example of something happening with very long odds (shouldn't use that word). But apparently not. But then those wanting to open the borders just don't care about the risk.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, P.K. said: But then those wanting to open the borders just don't care about the risk.... Nobody is just wanting to open the borders clown shoes. People have been debating potential flexibilities in policy for months. Not opening up. I’m starting to wonder if you are on the edge of some sort of catastrophic mental episode rather than just being an angry troll with nothing to say barking at the moon. I’m not surprised you were on the last helicopter out of Saigon when all this kicked off as clearly you’re being driven by an irrational fear of dying from something that is highly unlikely to kill you. But given you spectacularly backed the wrong horse by leaving the IOM at the start of this you seem to have continued backing the wrong runner at every opportunity since too. Edited October 13, 2020 by thesultanofsheight 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Does anyone think that the three Tier latest moonshot strategy or even a short, sharp full country lockdown is going to make a blind bit of difference to the transmission of the virus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, Nom de plume said: Does anyone think that the three Tier latest moonshot strategy or even a short, sharp full country lockdown is going to make a blind bit of difference to the transmission of the virus? Boris should copy Howie, scrap testing and then miraculously the number of cases will drop and everything back to normal! Perhaps hire PK as advisor😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Nom de plume said: Does anyone think that the three Tier latest moonshot strategy or even a short, sharp full country lockdown is going to make a blind bit of difference to the transmission of the virus? Might kill off most of the hospitality industry. And we'll be left with just Wetherspoons. Perish the thought. Edited October 13, 2020 by HeliX 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 https://twitter.com/rachomics/status/1315978261604823046?s=19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 17 minutes ago, Nom de plume said: Does anyone think that the three Tier latest moonshot strategy or even a short, sharp full country lockdown is going to make a blind bit of difference to the transmission of the virus? Covid: Jenrick defends decision to ignore Sage's lockdown advice UK communities secretary says government still being led by science on coronavirus restrictions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/covid-jenrick-defends-decision-to-ignore-sages-lockdown-advice I thought the Sage people WERE the science! Ignored on the 21st September - three weeks ago! Hasn't this Clown Show learned how a delay in lockdown is very costly in lives from their previous disastrous effort? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 34 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: Nobody is just wanting to open the borders clown shoes. People have been debating potential flexibilities in policy for months. Not opening up. I’m starting to wonder if you are on the edge of some sort of catastrophic mental episode rather than just being an angry troll with nothing to say barking at the moon. I’m not surprised you were on the last helicopter out of Saigon when all this kicked off as clearly you’re being driven by an irrational fear of dying from something that is highly unlikely to kill you. But given you spectacularly backed the wrong horse by leaving the IOM at the start of this you seem to have continued backing the wrong runner at every opportunity since too. Going back to the UK again shortly. It's so nice to have options... When are you headed to Liverpool 1 with your can of petrol...? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, wrighty said: I don't believe it was stopped as some sort of 'head in the sand, nothing to see here' measure. There are marginal benefits, but perhaps outweighted by as Rachel pointed out a reduction in viral surveillance. It wouldn't surprise me if 'head in the sand' was exactly the reason 7 day testing was stopped. The Three Wise Monkeys have long been presiding genii of Manx politics. But that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. A procedure that would be acceptable when the rate of infection was at the low levels of July and August is riskier when levels rise[1]. If arrivals are ten times more likely to carry the virus, it will be ten times more likely to get through if procedures are unchanged. And because the Manx procedures didn't take any account of travel history, that implies you have to treat all arrivals as being from a Red area. None of that means that tests shouldn't be carried out of course. Even tests on arrival have some benefit for behaviour modification and health monitoring. I rather like the New Zealand system where those in compulsory quarantine for 14 days[2] are tested at days 3 and 12 or 13. Quite a few show positive in the second test but not the first. [1] There's a tiny bit of truth in P.K.'s teasing about the welders - those who are travelling will have an often much higher rate of infection than their local base population for a variety of reasons. You see this for example in the Jersey tests on arrival. [2] Arrivals have to self-isolate in designated hotels, but if they test positive, they and their 'household' are moved to a quarantine facility in Aukland until they are no longer infectious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, P.K. said: But people like TheDogsDanglyBits just don't get probability and risk and maybe never will. Let me help you, PK - Risk = Probability + Impact Probability is not the same as risk. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: [1] There's a tiny bit of truth in P.K.'s teasing about the welders - those who are travelling will have an often much higher rate of infection than their local base population for a variety of reasons. You see this for example in the Jersey tests on arrival. I was trying, and apparently failing, to make the point about probabilities and always testing your worse case scenario. The probability was very very low that one of them would have the virus. Yet lo and behold.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Let me help you, PK - Risk = Probability + Impact Probability is not the same as risk. As I understand it probability is used as a measurement of risk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, P.K. said: As I understand it probability is used as a measurement of risk. You don't. Something with a high probability of occurring but with a very low consequence if it does is low risk. Something with a low probability of occurring but with a catastrophic consequence could be considered high risk and may be something to avoid. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, P.K. said: As I understand it probability is used as a measurement of risk. Not in risk management. Just as important is impact, that and probability give you the risk. So something can be very high probability with minimal impact and so would equal low risk and so not worthwhile imposing risk limitations measures. On the other hand, something could be low probability but high impact, so could be higher on the risk scale and so worthy of some risk management measures. The important thing is that the impact of the measures do not outweigh the risk, and that is the crux of the covid debate. 2 1 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.