Roger Mexico

The IOM Newspapers piece makes no sense. Why should he miss Tynwald (which was conducted 'virtually') and yet still be "chairing the national strategy group and the Council of Ministers". I'd assume those would be done online as well (and if he's self-isolating they damn well ought to be), but why be well enough for those but not the other. Admittedly the piece shows signs of being written in haste: "and after taking a test thig afternoon, he is awaiting results from a test", but it's all very odd. (And all those remarks about Howard Quayle waiting to see what Boris did and then repeating it a few days later, no matter how daft it was. He's clearly taking them way too seriously. Though presumably like most COVID tests this will come back negative and he's just got something minor).

Probably not because a lot of the stuff we are competitive in is continuing as normal. Either because those doing it can work from home such as a lot of the financial stuff or because it is continuing anyway (manufacturing, foodstuffs). Presumably the difference is that under JSA rent is paid as well. That makes sense because it would wasteful to give everyone laid off work a fixed amount which included enough to pay rent even if it wasn't needed. It's also good that they are responding so fast in getting the money to people. Despite all the praise being heaped on the UK Chancellor by the lapdog media, those laid off in the UK are getting nothing till the end of the month at the earliest.

I presume this is derived from the ICNARC (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre) Report which assessed all those confirmed COVID-19 cases who had been admitted into intensive care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland up to midday on 03 April 2020. Of the 2249 patients, 346 patients have died, 344 patients were discharged alive from critical care and 1559 patients were last reported as still being in critical care. So that is where the 50-50 split comes from, though of course there is no outcome data on the 69% of these patients who were still being treated. Since about a third of all UK COVID deaths have happened since the cut off, even though it was only a few days ago and there is clearly also a reporting lag on the Birmingham data, where they seem to be overwhelmed, these are very much provisional figures. But they do give some hints, particularly about those admitted. As you say the big difference is by the level of support needed. 84% of those only on basic respiratory support survived, while only 33% of those who needed advanced did (though a third of these had started out on basic). And fewer of those only needing basic were in ICUs in the first place - a proportion that will presumably reduce more as things get worse and resources get stretched - as is already shown in the Report in the hotspots of London and West Midlands. If Johnson wasn't PM I suspect he wouldn't be getting an ICU place if he was only needing basic care. Regarding age, the median age was 61 on admission, but the IQR was 52-70[1]. The fact that only a quarter were in the age range deemed vulnerable (over 70) shows that the idea that this only affects the elderly is mistaken. Of course many of the elderly patients with COVID (or indeed without) might not even make it to ICU with priority given to younger ones or because it is too late to intervene, so the sample will probably be skewed[2]. The wider demographics are interesting as well. Women were only 27% of those admitted. This isn't because women are less likely to catch the virus (for example they make up 54% of those tested positive in Ireland), but it seems to be that it affects them less badly. Al;though people have been classifying pregnant women as vulnerable, they seem less affected than other groups. Women who have recently given birth might be vulnerable though and look well over-represented, though sample sizes are necessarily small. Ethnicity shows higher rates for Black and Asian patients, but that seems to be mainly a function of such groups being more heavily concentrated in urban areas where pandemics always take root first. Once that is adjusted for using census ward data, the link disappears for Asian, though not Black. There also a link with obesity as well, though not a strong one - though again patient selection may play a part. [1] That is the Inter-Quartile Range - in this case 25% of patients admitted were younger than 52, 25% were over 70 and the rest between those ages. The median is the age which 50% were younger than and 50% older. (Obviously wrighty knows this, but some others might not). [2] Though interestingly the age profile of those admitted with viral pneumonia over 2017-19 which the Report gives in comparison, isn't significantly different.

Some places seem to use a standard drop-down menu that has 'Isle of Man' on it, but price-wise it just defaults to a Rest of World costing. As you say the way to get round it is to enter UK and if they are using Royal Mail they won't mind. Those who use couriers will always work it out using the post code because the extra charges for some Highland will mean they always have to assess using that, not just the country.

I think it's due to whether things come by air or by sea. Courier companies transport in bulk by sea and then distribute. A lot of mail comes by air (especially smaller parcels) and the regulations are different and general for air transport.

Fifth according to worldometers[1], having just been knocked down a place by Iceland adding in today's extra figures. A lot of this is because of the small country effect of course. Vatican City is at #1 with a whole 7 cases. But it's also because small places do more testing and so discover more people with few or no symptoms who test positive. Worldometer has added in new columns for total tests done and per 1 million population[2] and most of those with the highest number per head are small places (Luxembourg is #4) with a high number of cases per head. Despite Quayle's bragging about testing, we're actually only at #13, though we started doing it properly later than some, so I suppose it's good for catch-up. We're also #15 for cases per head though, just beaten by the Channel Islands (as usual). [1] One of the nice things about their main table is that it is spreadsheet form, so you sort it by clicking on the appropriate headings. You'll have to add your own piano music though. [2] Though they haven't yet got figures for a lot of countries, including China. It's worth making the point that this isn't the same as the percentage of people tested, as many who have been diagnosed with the virus will be tested again (maybe several times) to see if they are clear, as may some in vulnerable roles, such as medical staff.

Not illegal last time I looked. Unlike evasion. I'm sorry Derek, but this is wishful thinking. The divide between avoidance and evasion is not some nice clean line that people can point to and proclaim that what they are doing is therefore legal. It's a very grey area and depends on ever changing case law and how courts and tribunals treat such thing as intention. Despite what the British media tell you, you can't announce that something is avoidance not evasion and be magically in the clear. Any more than some druggie assuring you that what they had was perfectly legal would be enough for you to believe them. Accountants and tax advisers can't do it either - just because they devise some ingenious tax dodging scheme which they claim will be valid and save their clients from paying tax, it doesn't mean it will eventually and always be treated that way. As happened in the case of Mr Barrowman, though as ever it's the clients who end up paying for the mistakes of those they have already paid to protect them.

Breathe ..... and relax. Someone admitting they were wrong on here is rare enough that we should all be grateful for it.

Anyway, to get back to the actual comment, I assume you were referring to the 2019 Isle of Man in Numbers, which had the following information on electricity generation: Now the on-Island consumption matches pretty close to the figures from the MUA Accounts I gave before, with the small difference (363.4 GwH[1] v 362 GwH) being due to different periods, the above being calendar year 2018 as opposed to financial year 2018-19. But little else matches. The amount generated was a bit over 400 GwH according to the above but the MUA say they generated 460 GwH on their own. And I've now discovered that the MUA figures don't include any input from the Energy from Waste (EfW) plant - ie the incinerator. I'd assumed that anything produced was minimal. But according to a document produced for the Curran Report (para 1.3) it fed 25,000 MwH (ie 25 GwH) into the 'National Grid' in 2017[2]. (The MUA are clearly trying to pretend anything they don't produce themselves isn't proper electricity - there's no mention of it at all in the Annual Report I could see). This ups the amount generated on the Island to 485 GwH. However the MUA say they exported 131 GwH which leaves 354 GwH for on-Island consumption. That's not much less that the 363 or so that were consumed, only a couple of percent not 13%. I can't see how the timing difference would resolve this, it suggests that the IOMiN or the MUA ones are wildly out and maybe so was Allinson's suggestion that 10% would be an increase, or, as I suggested, that the current situation would make electricity cheaper. [1] The MUA Accounts use million units, where the unit is KwH. 1000 KwH = 1 MwH, 1000 MwH = 1 GwH. [2] This explains the 7% 'renewable' in the above graph (assuming the total is around 400 GwH), though as the document on the EfW points out only "a percentage" of the total should be classified as renewable (and 'a percentage' could mean zero), the IOMiN has decided to virtue signal that it is the lot.

Surely "in his lies thread" would mean a thread about lies started by Chris Thomas. To which I link above. It has "lies" in its title. Twice.

I have to object to you calling Chris Thomas a liar. That is not fair and probably breaks MF rules, or should. Dili, I think most of us assumed that rather than calling Chris Thomas a liar, TheTeapot was referring to this topic:

Well according to that Mirror article they were getting married in 'the chapel of the House of Lords', by which I assume she actually means St Mary Undercroft - which actually serves both Houses. So there would be no crumbs available locally, financial, social or publicity wise. And the £25 million mansion is still up for sale.

It's not actually that much of a change - in fact it may be bad news if you examine it closely. If you look at the 2018-19 MUA Annual Report: So the total amount of electricity generated was 454 mu (gas) + 2.4 mu (hydro) + 3.4 mu (diesel) = 459.8 mu - say 460 mu. 362 mu was used on Island and 131 mu exported = 493 mu So the remaining 33 mu must have been imported, which is 9.1% of Island usage - not much less than the 10% Allinson is claiming. But it's also claimed (see following page) that £3.4 million was made as 'Export Trading Profits' - with lower usage in the UK - especially presumably at peak times - we won't exporting anything and so those profits will be reduced.

I didn't pick up this ridiculous comment yesterday because I was never sure if @chancer was a parody account or not. If I wanted to mock the self-defensiveness of a certain section of the Manx establishment, I'd certainly try to represent it as thin-skinned and thick-headed; prissy and foul-mouthed; sensitive to every criticism and incapable of answering any of it. No matter how minor or helpful the intention of those disagreeing, the only response is to tell them to shut up and agree completely with the self-evident wisdom of those in charge. The voice of arrogance and privilege coupled with a complete ignorance of the actual situation being discussed - it's Dunning-Kruger turbocharged. Surely this can't be genuine? Or if it is, anyone who felt like that would they be foolish enough to be so open in their stupidity. And yet it not only appears to be sincere, but other people, rather than laughing at it in horror, appear to think it is a perfectly reasonable position. The way to deal with a crisis isn't to discuss it and use the best evidence to create the best solutions, but touch your forelock and agree completely with what your self-appointed masters come up with. The important thing is not to minimise harm, but to inflate the fragile egos of those who claim they are in charge. It is always tempting to say in crises that we should all pull together, but that's no good if the boat is heading towards the rocks - you're just going to sink quicker. This sort of attitude actually works completely against the public interest, an epidemic is at heart set of scientific problems to be solved and that requires open discussion and for the authorities to take on board criticism. An aggressive and arrogant response to any dissent not only means sub-optimal policies are enforced that may lead to unnecessary illness and death, it also places in danger and insults those who are doing their best to control the spread of the disease and are at most risk from catching it.

Actually it was grammatically correct anyway. You wouldn't say "He's left we out of it", you'd say "He's left us out of it" Adding the word English just qualifies 'us' it doesn't alter the sentence.