Jump to content

madmanxpilot

Regulars
  • Content Count

    871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by madmanxpilot

  1. 2 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

    3fm reported the other day that the lighthouses on the Calf of Man were designed by Robert Louis Stevenson 

    Yes - and he was inspired to write Treasure Island after paying a visit to see them when after they'd been completed. True story apparently.

  2. 3 minutes ago, daisy said:

    That is my point the current level of vaccinations is the concern just now - we are not there yet!!!! what is the variant of this unknown case? is this a new variant that may or may not be out there - bit like Kent was earlier this year..... or a variant that may evade the vaccine or is this  just the click of an admin officers mouse that should have removed this enigma from the dashboard?  Of course Covid isn't going away overnight/ever but we shouldn't stop collecting/publishing accurate data until we are sure we are protected as best we can be and for the next few weeks until everybody that has had the 2 jabs 'we' should be sure the information published is accurate as it can be.

    You seem to be getting wound up by something that really isn't important.

    It's not an unknown case, it is a 14 day old case that for some reason they haven't associated with a postcode. 

    Go and put the kettle on and have a cup of tea and relax 😌 - life is to short to waste time stressing over trivial things.

     

     

  3. 3 minutes ago, daisy said:

    Maybe - it could be the spreadsheet hasn't been updated... we are not out of the woods yet so until all that want/have had 2 jabs we should have all the info we need to ensure we make the right decisions to keep ourselves and others safe

    To be fair, knowing which postcode one of the historic cases is from really isn't important.

    I do agree that it should be removed as it obviously is causing concern for some who may think it is something sinister.

    • Like 1
  4. 8 minutes ago, daisy said:

    Would be good if  it was explained then....

    Purely from a housekeeping point of view, perhaps.

    Maybe it's a person of no fixed abode?.

    The bottom line though is that it's irrelevant.

  5. 1 hour ago, Cambon said:

    Officially no new cases today, but if you look at the snapshot, on the page where it gives figures by post code it says there is one unconfirmed.

    That's been showing on the location page since 26 April.

    • Thanks 1
  6. 8 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

    Then how has this got past Treasury?

    The same way as most other things work on this Island. If the AD or DAD say it's needed, who are they to challenge?

    There should be a board made up of aviation professionals to consider the necessity of expenditure, and to ensure that measures that enable the airport to operate with greater resilience are at at the forefront of any plans.

    Charisma and bullshit seems to be the order of things.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 4
  7. 7 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

    So who, precisely, decides from a technical view that this work is necessary? Does DOI fly someone in (from CAA or whoever) to evaluate the state of the run/taxi ways? Or do we have our own technically competent person making the decision?

    ни один

    From what I understand, it was simply a perceived need from someone who has absolutely no technical knowledge regarding the issues involved.

  8. 1 hour ago, asitis said:

    Anyone know the rationale why the starter extensions on 26 / 08 need widening ?

    To allow aircraft to do U turns on the runway where it is currently too narrow for this to be possible. 

    If remedial works were ever done on the taxiway that passes the jet centre, the landing distance available would have to be reduced on runway 26 (and obviously the take off distance on 08) to ensure aircraft did not become stuck on the narrow starter strip.

    It shouldn't be necessary however as we managed perfectly well before that starter extension was ever even thought of.

    NOTAMS would ensure crews were aware of the closure of the taxiway and by default the narrow part of the runway (08 starter strip).

    A total waste of money IMHO. 

     

    • Thanks 2
  9. 1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

    Neither the Government or the Steam Packet wanted to bring back COVID to the Island,There were misunderstandings no doubt.

    Sorry, that's not how it works. Someone should have ensured that the protocols were understood and being complied with.

    Because that didn't happen, over a thousand people were infected, people died and the Island was shut down for nearly two months with all of the cost and hardship that caused.

    It's is too big a deal to be simply put down to making a mistake and effectively swept under the carpet.

    It was a totally avoidable clusterfuck and those responsible should be held to account.

    • Like 11
    • Thanks 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

    Thank you!

    So, for the imbeciles such as myself ...

    We can work it out approximately as follows:

    Lets say 2,500 cases per day for the last 14 days 

    35,000 cases

    Divided by the U.K. population 

    67,000,000

    x 100,000

    Would produce ...

    52 per 100,000

    Bingo! :0)

    Correct!

  11. 1 hour ago, John Wright said:

    The 14 day total per 100,000 is a total, not an average. At least that’s how I interpret it.

    It seems to be a standard international way of calculating infection levels for the setting and measuring traffic light systems.

    So it’s not an average. To get the 14 day figure you add the figures for the two preceding 7 day periods together.

    Because it’s over 14 days it’s not subject to wild variations caused by one day of high or low figures. An average would have the same result of a measurable figure, albeit the figure would be different.

    I don’t think it matters. It should be standardised so they are comparable. And it should be readily accessible.

    My understanding is that the figures are 5 days “out of date”, so today’s 14 day figure will be the total per 100,000 of positive cases tested between 11 and 25 April. That ensures all cases are reported and recorded and by using test date, rather than report date, you strip out anomalies caused by late reporting.

    I got yesterday’s UK 14 figure as +/- 48

    Yes. It took a while for me to get to the bottom of it last night, but I leventually figured it out. The only place where I actually found it described was on the Jersey Government's website.

      The 14 day case notification rate is calculated by summing the number of daily cases in an area in the past 14 days and dividing this number by the total population that live in that area. This is then multiplied by 100,000 to allow comparisons between areas of different sizes. 14 day rates are not comparable to 7 day rates.  
    • Like 1
  12. 5 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

    oh goody, so is that a good or bad system then ?

    I'm not sure than a system being used for this purpose (border control) that relies solely on cases is as appropriate as it was before the vaccines began to have a significant impact. 

  13. 25 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

    That's where I think it's come from too - but as always, I stand to be corrected.

    Right - carrying on with the arse theme, I think I've got to the bottom of it.

    The IOM are using the UK's 14 day notification rate, which is favoured by the ECDC. This is not an average, it is the total number of cases in the previous 14 days added together and expressed in terms of per 100,000 of the population. So, by way of example, if a country had a population of one million, and had 467 covid infections in total during the previous 14 days, then it's 14 day notification rate would be 46.7/100K.

     

     

  14. 6 minutes ago, Itsmeee said:

    I think the term you’re looking for is “she got a right arse on”. She was clearly rattled and treated the journalist like a naughty child. I think that’s one of the best questions I’ve heard from our journalists. It’s a shame she wasn’t allowed to go the full Paxman on Hetty. 

    It reminded me of Laura Kunnesberg speaking to Matt Hancock yesterday. At least Dr E gave an answer.

  15. 4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

    It’s certainly not your first suggestion.

     

    A fourteen day rate is the total number of cases in the last 14 days divided by 14.

    What you have described is a method I am unable to find in use anywhere to give a 'rate' of infection.

    Can you point me in the right direction?

    • Like 1
  16. 15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

    You’re calculating wrongly. The 14 day per 100,000 is calculated by adding together the 7 day rate for today and 7 days ago.  It’s not an average. So 24 April the 14 day rate is 48 per 100,000 and 23 April  it was 50.

    The reason I use those dates is that the figures for the immediate precious 5 days are not complete due to reporting delays. 

    So it's not actually a 14 day average - it's an accumulation of the previous two weeks 7 day averages? 

    Did someome just dream that up as a good idea or is it a widely used metric?

  17.  

    Four million quid to put up tents and staff them at the sea terminal and the airport to test arrivals? They must having a laugh, unless they are expecting this to carry on for a decade or more.

    Also, it seems that a case that crops up from unknown source prison and hospital visits must cease? How long is that going to go on for?

     

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...