Jump to content

Lost Login

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lost Login

  1. The first sentence is a non answer. We can achieve nil but the restrictions we have to put in place to achieve that may be deemed to be excessive and result in major problems elsewhere. I appreciate that we need to control the spread and the numbers so we can cope, but just because it spreads quickly and has a higher mortality rate than some other diseases does not in my view mean that there is a requirement that it is concentrated on the exclusion of basically everything else. I read posts and it seems that if we keep in restrictions in place until there is a cure/vaccine and do so at a
  2. I gave an answer to PK on this a long time ago. At the same time I asked him how many deaths from other causes are you prepared to accept to prevent a single further case of Covid 19. Due to the lack of other treatments there is a knock on effect on other areas of health. In a utopian world the answer to the question is nil as it is to your question. But we don't live in a utopian world so for every Covid 19 life saved how many missed cancer diagnosis, future deaths from cancer etc should we allow before the balance on the scales are tipped. PK refused to answer.
  3. The logical extension of your argument, if I presume your answer is nil, is that we never open the borders and continue social distancing etc indefinitely as if flu or norovirus goes around IoM community then it could result in some people dying. Same for measles for those who have not had a vaccine. People could pick up all sorts of diseases when on foreign holidays. We act in a manner where we state that the only acceptable number of deaths arising out of the population having x or y disease is nil, we take a considered balanced approach. Why is Covid 19 different?
  4. I agree. The social distancing rules are slowly breaking down and the longer it goes on without a new case the more that will be the case. Many appear to be now ignoring the formal rules and just applying what they see as common sense although I have seen many examples of people just acting as normal when out on the odd cycle ride. I see groups of kids of kids and youths playing or meeting up out of site of their parents. It is very hard to tell my kids they can not do X or Y when it is very obvious to them others are doing the same. We should all as a matter of good practice continue to
  5. I think testing all those who had tests would be a good idea as it would indicate how accurate the test results were. My understanding is that the actual test is very accurate but that it can be difficult when swabbing to get virus on the swabs so that there is a fair chance that many of those given negative results where actually positive cases. This is important as if we get a new outbreak it will be important when explaining to the public why they must continue to self isolate eve if found negative.
  6. It may not be but it appears to be the basic model that operates in most "democracies" as nobody appears yet to have come up with a better option. If you are part of the "executive" you support the executive and if you cannot you resign or get sacked. My issue in these cases is that generally there is something else behind the scenes driving it because if it was purely a matter of conscience the honourable way would be to explain your position and then resign before voting. That provides a level of flexibility for being brought back at a later date. Voting in a way that you know will g
  7. That might be at the board level but once the board have approved you would expect them to support. If as a director you can not support as you believe it is not in the best interest of the company then presumably you will try and get shareholders to call a shareholders meeting or you resign. If you do the former then I expect you will not last long as a director. The company analogy is not perfect but it is probably the best. Directors disagreeing at board level may not be that unusual and it would be recorded in the minutes. The idea that directors continue to oppose and would vote agai
  8. Testing 1,000 a day it would take nearly 3 months to test every body. Even testing 5,000 a day would take over 2 weeks. Those sort of numbers are not feasable
  9. The problem is that amongst the vast majority who will obey the requirements without being checked up on there may be some who won't. So what do you do? Not check up and let those people potentially spread Covid 19 around the IoM or check up and get accused of being heavy handed.
  10. Because as has been pointed out numerous times if you sign up to join the council of ministers you are free to argue your point and vote as you wish at a council of ministers meeting but once the council of ministers have agreed a position on a matter a minister is then expected to support that decision. It is just like virtually any organisation which has some sort of board or committee. If you are part of a board or a committee you are expected to respect the decisions of that board and committee and not oppose them. If you don't like that don't sit on the board or committee. It wo
  11. If we run with that analogy, Thomas was not dismissed for disagreeing with others and voting how he saw fit at the council of ministers meeting ( = board meeting in the analogy) At that meeting he would have been acting in what he thought was in the best interest of the Govt/IoM (= company/shareholders in the analogy) A vote was taken and the outcome of that vote would have set the Council of Ministers (= board of directors in the analogy) agreed position on the matter. The agreed their position by a vote the Council of Ministers (= board of directors in the analogy would then be expected to
  12. HQ was very clear and he said it would not.
  13. Why not it is pretty straight forward. The rules for being a minister are, and have been for years, that you argue and disagree within the council of ministers but once the council of ministers have agreed a position by voting all ministers support that decision. If you don't you having broken the rules you are out. It is irrelevant what the matter being discussed or voted on was. That has no relevance to the sacking. That is purely down to the fact that he voted against what the council of ministers had agreed was their position. You do that you are out. It is irrelevant who you are or
  14. Pretty irrelevant what the vote was about, the sacking was simply for not following the rules of the club. If by chance it was the CM who voted against the council of ministers you can be pretty certain he would be fairly promptly removed as well
  15. He got sacked because to be part of the club you sign to vote collectively on the basis that club decides. You break the club rules you are out. The rules of the club may be crap but presently them are the rules and they have been like that for a fair few years now. Certainly ling before HQ became CM.
  16. This appears to be another thread where people just have a go at HQ because they don't like him. What do they suggest HQ should have done instead just let CT ignore the rules agreed by the council of ministers. As I say whether or not you like a council of ministers it works because they sign up to collectively responsibility & vote accordingly. That has been the way now for many years and if you vote against without a pre-declared position you will get sacked. It is nothing new. If HQ had done nowt HQ would have been accused of being weak. Pail Moulton was at the press briefing today
  17. Because dictatorships are not usually that popular?
  18. If he had real integrity he would have resigned first and then voted against something he did not believe in. Waiting to be sacked looks like hoping quietly you will get away with it. I do not like the current ministerial system. Back benchers should out number ministers and members if departments but whilst we have it unfortunately it only really works if ministers do vote whatever way the council of ministers have decided. As a compromise I think that if a matter passes in the council of ministers with only 1 or 2 voting against they should vote collectively. If 3 or more vote agai
  19. More arrogant than Robertshaw or Eddie Teare last time around? Boot never comes across of being a particularly humble man either
  20. Whether we like it or not we have a council of minister whilst we have that if you want to be in that club you have signed up to the rules which is that you accept collective responsibility unless you have a pre declared position. If you don't like it don't sign up. Once you are in if you want to vote against why don't any of them resign first and then vote. Virtually all vote against the council of ministers and then wait to be sacked. It is as if they are trying to play the martyr rather than haveing the courage of their convictions.
  21. Tynwald Day is over 5 weeks away. We have had no new cases for 6 days and only one since May 16. By Tynwald day we could, if we lucky have had no cases for over 6 weeks. I agree that Tynwald should be pared back but surely in 6 Weeks time 30 -40 people should be able to sit on a hill in the open air without having to social distance unless something goes badly wrong. Is sitting on the hill all that is really required, all the rest is just unnecessary paraphernalia. Govt, as far as I am aware, has yet to confirm what the new "Manx Normal" that they keep referring to. Many of us appeared to
  22. I am not sure that a business where margins are miniscule and reliant on filling coaches etc would meet my definition of a good solid little business to invest in
  23. Most of us are armchair experts on here but away from being crammed together on public transport, in a crowded pub etc I expect that social distancing is probably the measure that is least important in terms of spreading and catching. Far more important is good hand hygiene, self isolating if you or a member of your household are unwell, not coughing and sneezing anywhere near somebody else let alone 2m away. My understanding was the 2m distancing was based on the dispersal of the virus in the air when a person coughs or sneezes and to be frank I would prefer them not to cough or sneeze in my
  24. Maybe but I am pretty sure that will preclude some deciding he is not a suitable candidate. Next time it is probably fairly certain Alfie will be elected Chief Minister with possibly Watterson going against him but I think Watterson likes his cushy number of never having to make a tough decision. The outsiders I would have thought are Allanson and Ashcroft. Allanson I think only got elected at the last election and Ashcroft has not been in a great deal longer and until the Covid 19 media conferences I doubt may would have had him in the running. Lets just ignore Cregeen, Skelly, Harmer an
  25. What a facile attempt at an argument Treading on cracks on the payment etc are not against the law or any rules As a consequence of breaking the speed limit, plenty have crashed and seriously injured or killed other. All that is required to obey the speed limits is for drivers to behave like responsible adults. The consequences in law of spreading Covid 19 are I believe basically just a fine and possibly a term inside. In my view both speeding and spreading Covid 19 are selfish and irresponsible with the main difference being you might spread Covid 19 without realising yo
×
×
  • Create New...