Messages

1

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 19, 2021, 12:44:55 PM »

Yes probably meeting friends for a game of golf or even tennis or whatever is probably safe. But it goes against the overall message which is stay at home. Do I like it? No. Do I understand it? Yes.

Yeah, for months there have been individual restrictions that have been difficult to justify in isolation, but the authorities seem to have belatedly understood that continuity of message is crucial.

People just don't do granularity very well, particularly when it's not well communicated. Last year demonstrated this, with widespread complaints that advice was confusing and seemed inconsistent. More nefarious individuals cited this confusion when attempting to dismiss the credibility of the advice, and even the concept of restrictions altogether.

Another related, and also poorly communicated, consideration has been the difference between cumulative risk and relative risk. Still people argue that because they are permitted to do Activity X they should therefore be permitted to do Activity Y, which they deem to be relatively less risky with regard to exposure to the virus.

But relative risk doesn't really matter, and is a poor way of calibrating your risk tolerance. It's the cumulative risk of everything you do in a day/ week/ whatever that determines your risk exposure - so cutting out any non-essential stuff (like golf, for example) will help, even if you are still going ahead with other activities with more risk.

2

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 18, 2021, 10:32:47 PM »

Some head doc on the radio was saying most of the people in ICU are under 70

Average age of those in ICU in the UK was 59 in the first big wave last year, and about 60 during this wave.

ICU beds are given to those who are likely to benefit most - typically younger patients. The vast majority of these individuals survive. However, the pressures on the system, along with various pragmatic considerations, mean a lot of the over-80s dying from Covid never see the inside of an ICU unit.

Younger Covid survivors that end up in ICU do not contribute to the death stats, but it is the resources channelled into saving the lives of these people that have the hospitals bunged to the stage that the health service no longer functions. This point is usually ignored by those whose viewpoint seems to be informed exclusively by death stats.

It's also important to note that many of these hospital bunging survivors are from groups that will not be offered a vaccine for many months yet - a reason for patience.

3

General discussion / Re: The IRISH RUGBY thread

« on: February 16, 2021, 11:22:40 AM »

What I find amazing is that in Ireland where rugby is a minority sport , a substantial number of players come from a private school background which is a tiny percentage vid the population, yet we can beat England and France and even wales who have much more resources . Fair play to Irfu for getting us punching above our weight, and marketing the game well. But where is Rugby in Ireland actually going, it’s not widening its appeal , it’s dangerous, elitist , and we are apparently getting worse at it

If the GAA doesn't get it's restart right after Covid. And Rugby does....there'll be a swell of GAA players turning to it. With the potential to actually make a few quid. This could be what propels rugby in Ireland. I play a bit of rugby myself and I've already had a few men come to me and ask about getting started when they go back to training as they won't wait for the GAA.

No there won't.

There may be a negligible number of kids who play both in some places that swing more towards rugby as a result, but there will not be any large scale switching of focus because of a month or two of differential organisation.

The war for playing resources is fought incrementally over a timescale of decades. There are generations of local tradition and not insignificant cultural barriers to wear down. No one event, not even a pandemic, will prompt a sudden, large scale shift. It's just hyperbolic nonsense to suggest so.

4

General discussion / Re: Russophobia

« on: February 15, 2021, 09:59:01 PM »

Superb restraint from sid waddell thus far.

This one could be a bust.

5

GAA Discussion / Re: Money, Dublin and the GAA

« on: February 15, 2021, 05:40:15 PM »

I have a page from a Congress report somewhere that has figures on it but it's from around 2014/15.
Some other figures going back a bit but telling!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/figure/Games-development-money-received-from-GAA-per-registered-player-in-a-county_fig1_308516324/amp

Maybe this is what I was thinking about
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.balls.ie/amp/gaa/gaa-investment-in-dublin-348120

These figures are from the same guy, who seems to have been producing papers out of at Tallaght IT in and around 2015. There's no reason to doubt his numbers, but he doesn't really reference his sources other than to throw up a link for the GAA Reports to Congress. Not sure about these reports in the past, but those from recent years don't carry the figures.

So we have very little reliable recent data to inform the conversation. Which is a real shame, because there's a very important conversation to be had here.

6

GAA Discussion / Re: Money, Dublin and the GAA

« on: February 15, 2021, 02:42:10 PM »

Probably find it in the Annual report to Congress?

Had a quick look there, but couldn't find anything. Maybe someone else will have more joy.

Sources for figures like this are difficult to find. Typically, it's an unsubstantiated tweet or some sketchy article that gets thrown up in support of an argument. Very frustrating, as without this data it becomes impossible to have a discussion of any real substance.

It's all just shite talk without the numbers.

7

GAA Discussion / Re: Money, Dublin and the GAA

« on: February 15, 2021, 12:45:04 PM »

Cork have 23,000 most of which would be hurling.
There are more than 156,000 people on Cork.

Incorrect.

There are 33,832 registerd players in Cork versus 39,197 in Dublin

6.2% of the population of Cork are registered GAA players. Leitrim 11.4%. Kerry 9.9%.  Dublin  2.9%

The weight of numbers argument is a myth


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.balls.ie/amp/gaa/gaa-investment-in-dublin-348120

Where can this registered player data be found? Is it consistent across the country?

Would be very interesting to delve deeper into it. Initial reaction would be that numbers seem to be inflated for a number of counties.

Back of an envelop calculation for Armagh would mean about 1 in 4 of every man, woman and child (of nationalist persuasion) between the ages of 4 and 40 are registered 'players' - my personal experience would suggest that this is a gross exaggeration.

I'm sure clubs in certain areas and jurisdictions have reasons for inflating playing memberships - but that might mean this data is not reliable for use in the context of the discussion on this thread.

8

General discussion / Re: The IRISH RUGBY thread

« on: February 10, 2021, 08:35:52 PM »

Probably a good time for Sexton to hang them up. His bravery and combative style has resulted in a fair old battering over the past 18 years. A good innings, should get out whilst he still has his health.
I always thought he was overrated as a player and fairly one dimensional. He was never the world class player that the Irish media wanted him to be. More than decent place kicker but missed kicks that Farrell, Wilkinson, carter etc would nail. In particular, the kick to the right of posts v all blacks that would have put us 2 scores up.

He's a former World Player of the Year, that's the literal definition of world class.

9

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2021, 08:22:36 PM »

The debate we should be having is on what is the greater good but the lockdown nutters will not countenance this discussion.

I think the lockdown nutters are either extremely naive and gullible or mentally unwell. It seems that the chief medical officers and celebrity scientists have now taken over the role of parish priests and bishops in being completely infallible and having cult like following from the lockdown nutters.

Anyone who listens to that quack McConkey as a credible source is need of sectioning.

The repeated use of this kind of terminology today does not sit well with your longstanding claims of concern for those suffering from mental health problems.

10

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 03, 2021, 12:16:29 PM »

The question I asked was what was the average life expectancy from when a person enters a nursing home. The question is quite clear, there is little ambiguity in it. I went and found out the answer too, linked in the report - its 12 months. You have posted a series of long meandering posts that cover anything but the question asked.

Average = cumulative total divided by number of figures
Life expectancy = how long they will live for
When they go into the nursing home = as it says

Average life expectancy when they go into a nursing home.

I didn't ask for how long or how short they could live for, I asked for the average life expectancy. Maybe try and read more carefully next time.

This type of reply is why you are not respected by anyone on this board, Angelo.

There was an attempt to inform a feature of the discussion with reliable, and clearly relevant information. Most people with a genuine interest in developing the discussion would have taken this in good faith and worked through the figures.

But, as usual, your replies demonstrated no desire to get involved in an actual discussion. All you offered instead was belligerence and dogma.

The bit highlighted above is peak Angelo - you find something, somewhere that chimes along your intractable position and refuse to entertain any appraisal of contradictory information. The most absurd thing is that the source you provided doesn't even say what you claim it says. This is all very Trumpian, very post truth. Do you think it convinces many?

If you must make yourself such an incessant presence throughout this board, at least try to contribute from a position of honesty going forward. You have almost 1000 posts here since the turn of the year - more than 10% of the board output. You set the tone on whole threads here, which now essentially read like your blog. And that tone is nasty, antagonistic, and frustrated.

It seems like some sort of acceptance matters to you on this board, despite your objections. There's little other reason to spend so much time and energy in defence of an online persona. Perhaps a change of approach should be considered, for the health of both the board and yourself.

11

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 02, 2021, 11:17:57 PM »

Yeah, I asked a question and you went and answered one I didn't ask.

I was just clarifying that your answer has zero to do with the question I posed.

Not sure what you think you read, but if you return to it you'll see that I never offered an answer. I offered information from published figures that could be used to inform a best estimate.

Your question cannot be answered definitively because the figures you want are not published, therefore estimations have to be made from available information.

The AVERAGE life expectancy for patients admitted to nursing homes is 12 months according to the report I put up there.

And other reports suggest differently, because the figures are not published and each report is estimating and extrapolating from various disparate sources.

In the south they are reporting that half of their total deaths are nursing home patients, people who probably have an average life expectancy of 12 months.

And? Regardless of whether the answer to your original question is 12 months or 12 years, where does this train of thought lead?

12

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 02, 2021, 09:11:58 PM »

Thanks for answering a different question than the one I asked.

The question I asked was:

What is the average life expectancy for a person once they enter a nursing home?

This would tend to point to it being 12 months:

https://www.bgs.org.uk/resources/end-of-life-care-in-frailty-care-homes

The average life expectancy in UK care homes is 24 months for care homes without nursing and 12 months for care homes with nursing. This belies a much more complex picture, where some residents enter a home with one or more rapidly deteriorating medical conditions. Many of this group die shortly after admission, while another group of residents live in care homes for much longer. It follows that all care home residents should be considered for end of life care, but it should not be taken for granted that all will need it straight away.

The figures I offered were average life expectancy. For the general population, though, as the ONS does not provide statistics on care home residents. There are various estimates out there on that - here's one that has it at up to 30 months for an 85 year old entering care; here's one that has the average stay at 26 months. Nothing very definitive.

Life expectancy is longer at advanced ages than most realise, and lost years are lost years regardless of when they occur. That's the point. It's not a healthy society that considers the option of sacrificing the elderly and vulnerable so that the rest are not inconvenienced.

13

General discussion / Re: China Coronavirus

« on: February 02, 2021, 08:21:35 PM »

50% of Free State deaths in the nursing homes.

Would anyone care to tell me what the life expectancy is for a patient that enters a nursing home? I would suspect quite a sizable amount would be doing well to see a year out in any case.

Not sure about the south but in the UK, a 75 year old can expect to live for another 12-13 years on average. An 85 year old can expect to live for another 6-7 years, again, on average.

Even allowing for nursing home residents being in poorer health than the general population, that's still a lot of years to write off just so that everyone else can get back down to the shops.

14

General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:

« on: January 29, 2021, 03:45:00 PM »

Are Phil jones and Chris Smalling still on the books at Utd?

Got shot of Smalling in the last window.

Jones is still there. Half way through a four year contract that he should never have been offered. Has barely featured since signing it. Could have been a great player, but it was clear from about 2014/ 2015 that his body was always going to hold him back. Club officialdom seem to have a soft spot for him - not much other explanation for the millions he's been given over the last five or six years with so little return.

Rojo is another boy that was given a multi-year contract a few years ago and has offered nothing since. Probably also some logic about 'protecting value' with these absurd contract renewals - but that only works if anyone else ever wants to buy the duds.

15

General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:

« on: January 29, 2021, 02:13:33 PM »

Jesse (almost) away to West Ham for the rest of the season, I hope it reignites his career for him. He stagnated at United and his off field persona didn't exactly endear him to people but there is a decent enough footballer in there..

Like him or loathe him his goal reel is a joy to watch. Rio Ferdinand said they struggled to work out his best positon at Utd which maybe stunted his development. Good luck to him. I'll add that he hasnt been any worse than Martial.

Maybe the reason there was a struggle to find his best position is that he just wasn't very good in any of them. An ordinary player with an ordinary record, punctuated with one outlier of a season in 17/18 when he briefly looked capable of ascending to the next level.

Very poor call by him and his agent to not look for an exit after it became clear he wasn't wanted last summer. He has not enhanced the value of his next contract with six months of bench warming, and the footballing world is now six months deeper into the COVID financial crisis. Lucky to get this audition at West Ham - wouldn't be a surprise if he fluffs it.