Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

VinnieK

Subscribers
  • Content Count

    5,806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

VinnieK last won the day on August 30

VinnieK had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,371 Excellent

2 Followers

About VinnieK

  • Rank
    I'se got the Ize.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Douglas
  • Interests
    Cheese, smokes, ladybirds.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,333 profile views
  1. To my wholly ignorant view, I can't see what the problem is provided that Christian doesn't become a political member for the departments before she's sworn in. The analogy I'm thinking of here is between the date of being appointed to a job and its actual start date.
  2. This misses a couple of important points about the survey. The first is that, as Island Global Research themselves report, the sample for BAME respondents is small, consisting of just 87 people. That means that, were this a random sample (which it isn't), there would be some pretty hefty confidence intervals around that figure. The second is that BAME typically excludes anyone who is white, but plenty of white people in the British Isles can consider themselves to be victims of racism, i.e. Eastern Europeans, Irish Travellers, etc. A further point is that there's no useful breakdown of how the two groups answered: it may be the case that a majority of the BAME respondents who reported a perception of racism did so for the two higher categories, while white respondents by and large reported lower categories, in which case the analysis would have to be a lot more nuanced than "Look! White people think it's a bigger problem than Black, Asian, etc., respondents do!" That alone should act as a caution against leaping to (or insinuating) a particular conclusion about racism on the Island and how it is perceived. Then there's the fact that accurately investigating the actual prevalence and degree of racism and racist attitudes in a society is notoriously difficult and probably requires much more subtle and sophisticated techniques than Island Global Research were able to employ (which, to be fair, they more or less admit in the introduction). It's not really buried though. The result is right there on the page dealing with the Isle of Man, clear enough to see for anyone capable of adding three numbers together. It's not like they consigned the figure to a passing mention within a dense wall of text in section 5.6 of Appendix F.
  3. You're not looking at the long term: make the island into the shape of a cat so we attract massive interest from around the world, then. . .something, something, blockchain. . .and, bob's your uncle, we have enough money rolling in to build monorails all over the place and felt museums in every single town and village. I fully expect this to lead to a snowball effect of ever increasing investment and we'll soon be able to buy Lancashire, incorporate it into greater Mannin, and force its inhabitants to mine asteroids for the continuing prosperity of their Manx overlords. Also, the monorail trains will be shaped like cats
  4. But the point still stands: the argument about capability means nothing if not viewed in relation to the men who did get the position.
  5. Isn't the point here whether they were any worse than some of the men who were appointed?
  6. Might have to destroy Douglas to make it though, though that might be an argument in favour. Also, we need a massive fog horn on North Barrule that miaows disapprovingly at England every hour, on the hour, at an amplitude and frequency sufficient to cause the whole of Liverpool to shake.
  7. Another vote in appreciation of this. A bit of land reclamation here and some radical engineering of the landscape there, and we might just be able to make this a reality. There might even be enough rubble left over to provide Kirk Michael and Ballaugh with proper sea defences. Cancel the monorail and divert all funds into making this happen.
  8. So among political organizations on the Island, we now have the Greens, Manx Labour, Liberal Vannin, the Working People's Party, the Manx Democratic Socialist Forum, Mec Vannin (hiding in a pub somewhere, still grumbling quietly about the finance industry over a pint of stout they've been collectively nursing for the forty years since they were last active), the Positive Action Group*, and (maybe) HM the Sole's nebulous Ree Vannin? Can't help but notice the apparent reluctance to start a Conservative party or association on here. *Sadly not one of those euphemistically named paramilitary/conspiracy groups, as I learned when I turned up to their meeting in my balaclava and camos.
  9. My instinct is that he is probably partly right in a few places, but not the whole thing and even then possibly not for the right reasons. I'd be interested to know what comes out of what's happening in France at the moment, as I believe that their ITUs are under pressure at the moment.
  10. Will have a proper watch later, but something about his reasoning seems a bit fishy. There are lots and lots and lots of charts, but the arguments largely seem like they hinge on possibly superficial similarities of graph shapes, a tendency to focus purely on deaths and ignore the ventilator/ICU cases, and a running and potentially fallacious comparison with Sweden. I'd be more convinced if he'd presented evidence that any kind of effort to control for variables across comparisons had been implemented, but I can't find any indication that this is the case. Also, the value of some of the evidence to the point being made is debatable. For instance, the "16 Possible Factors for Sweden’s High COVID Death Rate among the Nordics" is actually written by three economists, for an economics journal, and an awful lot of the reasons in it are couched in very vague language (with more than a few starting "Sweden may" or "Sweden might"). That's not to rubbish the paper, but the emphasis the guy puts on it as a key result is suspiciously disproportionate. I may well be wrong, but my first impression is that this looks to be built on a process of joining the dots between a whole big sack of cherry-picked evidence. But maybe he's right, in which case I'll enthusiastically bookmark "how to fix my heart disease" from him, just in case.
  11. I think it's an attempt at self-effacement, but mangled to a degree usually reserved for beacons and other unfortunate metaphors.
  12. Or of how varied the market is in terms of both what's supplied and what's demanded and how that complicates the conclusion or the proposal of simply building our way to lower house prices. Nor is there any mention of the nature, extent, or effect (if any) of vacant properties on the market, or of how lending patterns influence things. All in all, it looks a lot like the kind of commentary that someone would throw up after having their mind blown by a handful of wikipedia articles or the first couple of chapters of Microeconomics for Dummies.
  13. There are still vulnerable people out there, but there are also still restrictions in place which may be what's currently limiting transmission to those people. With total easing, that protection is no longer in place and you run the risk of ending up right back where you started and having to go through another full lock down. It should also be noted that the category 'vulnerable people' is not limited to the very old either: people with diabetes are also at risk, and the increased risk of suffering from a severe form of the disease starts at around 40 and gradually increases with age. That seems a bit weak to me. In that scenario, all that over-emphasizing the danger now would achieve is to prompt people to ask why more wasn't done to begin with and why more still isn't being done now—which is exactly the criticisms I'm hearing coming out of England. It would be far easier for Boris use the same reasoning you've employed to declare everything is now sunshine and puppies and use that to vindicate their course of action. Of course, the hospitals might be a bit miffed, but we can always spin their objections as coming from doctors trying to scare us into buying them fancy new scrubs and cool ventilators to play with.
  14. Again, it's not just about death rates; for instance, France's hospitals have only just issued a warning about their intensive care units being under pressure after experiencing another spike in cases. Also, a lot of those factors you list are still in place: people who were vulnerable before COVID-19 are just as vulnerable now, and present the risk of hospitalizations surging in the same way as before if the virus is allowed to circulate freely among the population again. Finally cases vs. death rates isn't anywhere near the full story, since a large number of other factors like the age and health profile of those infected also plays a huge part in determining how severe the impact is. If those being infected are primarily young, then of course death rates and hospitalizations aren't going to rise as significantly as they did when things first kicked off. I don't know if COVID-19 is much less dangerous than we first thought, or if it has become much less lethal, though I hope that is the case. Two things I do know though are The circumstances today in the UK are still far from normal and so caution should be exercised when using these as an argument concerning the threat the virus poses. The saving face/justifying policy explanation for the government continuing with social restrictions makes little sense when: a) the most common criticism of the UK government that I've heard is they've cocked things up by being too lax and erratic in imposing restrictions; b) they could so easily market themselves as the saviours of Britain by declaring that everything's fine now and lifting restrictions.
  15. Which might not say as much as it may first seem to, since there are still plenty of restrictions in place in the UK and people are still generally exercising a fair bit of caution in how they go about their daily business.
×
×
  • Create New...