Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


monkie last won the day on July 18 2019

monkie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,073 Excellent

About monkie

  • Rank
    Senior Addict
  • Birthday 30/10/1985

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,385 profile views
  1. monkie


    Time to jump in again... Yes there have been limited deaths but that is because of the rules we have put in place. We are all under the most extreme lock down that we have ever seen in peace time and yet thousands of people are still going to die. Imagine if we hadn't? I have three colleagues in hospital (all in their 30s, normally fit and well), they all look like they are going to be OK but this is not "flu" it is a killer at a scale that we have never seen before (except maybe during Bubonic plague). I am acutely aware of the economic cost, I am an economist by degree and more recently have a business that should have turned over $1m this year now looking like it's going bust with significant personal liabilities. I am also closer to the coalface than many and I am completely on the side of the restrictions. They should be harder, faster. Yes it hurts. Yes that will damage the economy but if we hadn't done it in the UK we would have been looking at between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dead. The "it only kills old people" is not true and is only a bit true if we keep proper healthcare going for everybody else. You overwhelm your hospitals and that person who may only have "moderate" symptoms will die. Healthcare and mortuary systems do not have a bunch of spare capacity, it would be daft to have the staff and beds for an extra 100% of ITU patients available at all times so we have to work with what we have and that requires flattening the curve. All the chatter about "the cure being worse than the disease" was here four weeks ago. Everybody has now shut up because most people know somebody through 2 degrees who is very seriously ill. I hope Australia manages to avoid the worst of it because the planning we are doing now is not pretty.
  2. monkie


    Hi all, Not posted in a while but read every now and then. This thread is interesting, a lot of reverting to type and highly predictable. Hey ho. I'm part of the initial team of volunteer managers that are going into Nightingale (our first emergency hospital being built in a massive conference venue in London) to manage the logistics of bringing in up to 4000 patients at a time and, well, shipping out. I've also had to shift a company of 80 people to working remotely and delivering training remotely, we've done it, we're OK, but leading has been knackering. I can't be bothered to challenge the pseudoscience early in this thread, it will not need challenging shortly. The one small silver lining is that perhaps, maybe, people won't disregard science because they believe themselves to be "rational" and somehow better qualified than the scientific community. As of Monday I'm working a 4on / 4off rota, except my off will be keeping a business running and keeping many people employed and my on is managing shifts in one of the biggest hospitals in the country. Meanwhile my other company, a $1m marquee business is going bust and I'm trying not to lose my shirt. Take. This. Seriously. I'm sure I won't need to share the inevitably haunting pictures from the field hospital over the next few weeks, someone else will put them on social media but please, please. Stay home.* I sincerely hope all of you stay well. Monkie * Will try and share some light hearted selfie moments if I can
  3. monkie


    Sort of. Chemically they are the same but physiologically the different concentration and delivery method mean they have very very different effects. Someone high on powdered cocaine tends to just chat boring bollocks. Someone high on Crack is dangerous. I guess an analogy would be the difference in getting tanked up on 10 vodka red bulls in half an hour Vs an afternoon slowly on the beers but more extreme, especially when it comes to health effects. You can turn powdered cocaine into crack quite easily though so that would need thinking about for sure.
  4. monkie


    An interesting topic and one I have probably more experience than most in. That experience would be as a user of "recreational" drugs back in my wilder days of yore and as the person on the other side of the fence as ambulance crew at everything from Notting Hill Carnival to Download Festival to Wireless Festival as well as an operational commander for SJA at those events and then quite literally poacher turned gamekeeper as an event manager for some of the UK's biggest dance music promotors. Running events for over 10,000 people many with a proclivity to partake. My experience is UK orientated, it's not a world I have had any contact with over in Australia. In all of those capacities other than the first I have seen the serious impact on health that overdoses and poisonings can have. I've saved a fair few lives, not managed to save one and once been the person who had to tell the friends of somebody at one of my event's that they weren't coming home with them, ever. I am, of course, a bias sample. The roles I was undertaking meant that I would only see the ill people / people who had an issue. You don't call an ambulance to somebody who is fine which applies to the vast majority of people who take drugs or even drink to excess for enjoyment. In every case, except one where it was quite clear the poor chap had deliberately overdosed, the issues were caused by contamination or super-strength substances, all of which would have been solved with some kind of testing facility. The current "war on drugs" has objectively failed. Billions and billions of resources have been spent and deaths from drug misuses are at the highest ever level (again UK stats): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2018registrations. The biggest demonstration that the "war" has failed is that I could arrive in any city in the UK and in 10 minutes have my hands on anything from heroine to cannabis. On top of the human misery caused by those dying from misuse you also have the terrible depravations that take place in countries that are in the supply chain, Afghanistan, Mexico, South America all bear the scars from the horrific control that organised crime has over their society due to the insane amounts of money they can make from the trade. As an event manager we had to genuinely risk assess anti-drug measures to ensure we would not end up on the wrong side of a shot gun. If you confiscate a significant amount of an organised firm's drugs or get them caught by the police then you are highly likely to have a bunch of tooled up gangsters turning up at your event. The police would be useless in that situation. In terms of how to solve it, basically I think everybody would like a system that minimises harm and also stops my gran getting mugged to pay for heroin. I don't buy the "Alcohol is worse so we should treat it the same as that" as I think it's a strawman, "This thing is bad, but it's not as bad as that bad legal thing so we should legalise it" doesn't really add up. It is useful however to use alcohol as a mirror to hold up to the morally outraged to demonstrate the hypocrisy of that position. We should split drugs into the "recreational" and the "addictive", there is crossover but considerably less than you would think. However alcohol is a perfect example of a crossover. For many people who use it in moderation it is not problematic and the social good it does is actually a real thing. I have a GP friend who works in a rural practice and he told me that the people he worries about health wise are not the old boys who head to the pub for two or three pints of an afternoon because it means they are getting up, getting out and socialising. They also have a bunch of people who would notice if they didn't turn up for a couple of days. The worry are the isolated ones who nobody sees / visits. Equally for most people MDMA and Ecstacy are not proven to be addictive and people tend to "grow out of them" as life moves on (summary of research here: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mdma-ecstasy-abuse/mdma-addictive). There is a similar story for Cocaine although it is more addictive and does cause more problems. Note I am separating cocaine, from crack cocaine which is horrendously addictive. Crack, ice, heroine and the rest of the opiates are addictive. My personal view based on experience and looking at places like Luxemburg (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11199849/What-happens-if-you-decriminalise-drugs.html) is that we need a massive step towards decriminalisation. I would like to see MDMA, Ecstacy, Cannabis and Cocaine (not crack) legalised, regulated and taxed. They should be available to purchase from licensed retailers. Limited to the over 18s and packaged in a way that clearly explains the danger. I would also like to see the other drugs decriminalised and made available through medical practitioners. People would be able to get hold of them so long as they were also taking part in some kind of treatment program. No 10 year old wants to grow up to be a smack head. We treat alcoholism as a medical / social issue. We should do the same with all addictions. This is not going to happen any time soon. Stigma and political pressure will stop this happening. In the mean time drug quality testing has to be rolled out if only so I never have to give anyone that news again.
  5. One of the biggest fears of my HK friends is that the US will remove their "Free Port Status" this is essentially the US recognising HK as being a seperate entity from China. That is why Hong Kong passport holders get visa free access to various countries which Mainland Chinese do not as well as a whole load of other trade exemptions etc. The fear amongst Hong Kongers is that if it becomes clear that China is in fact completely controlling HK then the US would be inclined to remove free port status. If that happened then the rest of the world would probably follow suit. This is a clear indication that at the moment the US are doing the opposite. Here's a full explanation: https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/hong-kong-needs-china-and-it-needs-the-world-too/
  6. +1 for effortless swimming. Took 10 seconds off my 100m time with no extra effort.
  7. Castelli top is gone but I still got a load of CO2 and a basic bike lid to shift in addition to.... Mixed flavours, some with electrolytes. Mixed expiry dates (including some in the past). Missing nuts and bolts. Aluminium. Bad photo. Zoggs pull buoy. Speedo combine pull buoy / float. UK Size 8 -9 Centre snorkel Cryocuff complete with knee attachment. For the uninitiated these use ice and water pressure to help relieve swelling. They're real good! About $250 new. All free to a good home but I would prefer not to post as I have a lot on in prep for the move and they're all quite bulky. Collection Chatswood, Sydney CBD or near Central. I won't be checking on here much so please Whatsapp or text on +61437888604. I really don't want to throw this stuff away if possible and that's where it will be going if nobody wants it Cheers! Monkie
  8. There was no evidence found of misconduct. Have you read the link I shared? 9 investigations. No misconduct. If you have a source that shows otherwise then for the second time I invite you to share it. Many of the allegations of impropriety come from taking quotes out of context including "the trick" you yourself referred to. On the second point, again did you read the link? It specifically addressed your concerns. Again if you have evidence other than your hearsay then please do share it, I would be genuinely interested. On the last point you appear to being deliberately obtuse. Low emission vehicles emit less carbon as well as less particulates, the two go hand in hand. My suggestion about plastic reduction was referring to a general decrease in disposable consumption. Reducing frivolous throwaway consumption reduces energy consumption. And yes, eating less meat in the developed world has positive health outcomes... I'm not sure what your point is? And finally where are you going to put all those people from Bangladesh?
  9. If you are talking about UEA email hacking then some further reading would be useful: https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm. None of that amounts to "significant evidence" unless you have an alternative source that is not refuted by the comprehensive resource above? If you do, please share it. I already linked to a resource that addresses the heat islands, it concluded that temperatures increased even controlling for all of that. If you have a resource that disproves it or provides evidence otherwise then again, please share it. "The other is to put our resources into dealing with the consequences which has benefit whether global warming is real regardless of the cause or not." Could you explain this a bit more please? I gave specific examples of where mitigation would also have benefits. By dealing with the consequences do you mean raising Bangladesh by a bit? What would be the benefit of that if climate change is not the issue? Edited: My last sentence was unnecessarily forthright, I have corrected to more polite language.
  10. It's a pointless argument anyway. Of course there was a cost associated with her going there but in her calculations (and I agree) the benefit of the awareness she raised outweighs that cost in the long term. The idea that anybody who thinks that we should, do something about the environment perhaps for example, reduce our reliance on fossil and not be opening up new coal mines should only be listened to if they completely remove themselves from modern society is simply a straw man argument created by people with no better arguments to fall back on.
  11. No there is not. Unless you are claiming that NASA are lying. In which case we're so far into tinfoil hat territory that there is no hope. So the world is currently getting hotter. I have already agreed with all your other points. The causes, the severity, whether it is an anomoly or simply part of natural cycles and what to do about it are all under scrutiny. And you are incorrect to say that science is not about consensus. Of course it is. It is about using the collection of data to form opinions that are based on the balance of probabilities. There are no 100%s in science because we live in a probabilistic world and hence you will always have dissent, the trouble is that that dissent is then seized upon by those who use it as "evidence" that the rest is all wrong and incorrect. It's exactly the same as the anti-vax movement. Scientists will never say vaccines are 100% safe, because there are no certainties in the real world. In the same way scientists will not say that the current warming is 100% due to human behaviour. The majority will say that on the balance of probabilities this is the most likely explanation and a minority will disagree. That's the way of the world. This is also much more than "scientists saying" stuff. There is research and data and rigour behind the work that they do. Furthermore, not all scientists or scientific organisations are equal. You will claim that "Climate Scientists" have an inbuilt bias and desire to prove their own theories, I would counter that with the suggestion to look at where the funding is coming from for a lot of the people on the other side of the fence. No science is completely without bias, again, one has to take the balance of probabilities. The solution to the problem requires global thinking, it will involve a combination of technology and lifestyle changes. Many of those changes are simple and easy to achieve. They also have benefits outside of climate change. Lower emission vehicles improve air quality and hence health outcomes, reducing disposable plastic use reduces pollution in our oceans which means there's more beautiful wildlife for us to enjoy and cleaner beaches, reducing meat consumption (not removing it, just reducing it) improves health outcomes. It won't necessarily be easy, but then very few things that are worth doing are. The tired argument of "there's no point in us doing it if China keep doing that" is now outdated. China is already moving on a path to reduce carbon, they already generate 25% of their electricity through renewable resources. I'm using China here as a proxy for "Africa" & "Asia". As technologies improve there will be no need for those countries to replicate the carbon intensive growth that developed countries did. Why would countries building new power stations now use technology that is 50 years old? They won't they will use the most modern tech and hence will achieve similar economic prosperity without either the same level carbon cost or the other environmental costs. E2A: Could you please provide a link to the sources for the evidence that temperatures are being overstated? I would genuinely like to see it and a Google for "evidence that temperature increase is being overstated" doesn't bring up anything useful. Edit to further add I found this: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf which is very interesting and I think references what you are referring to. It still finds that the earth has warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 250 years.
  12. Indeed. That's the problem with anecdotes. The world is heating up at the moment, there can be no disputing that as a fact. There is some dispute around the causes of this, the effects of this and weather this is anything but usual cycles. The significant majority consensus in the scientific community is that it is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the effects whilst currently manageable will be severe and significant if allowed to go unchecked. There is then a perfectly sensible debate and discussion to be had about what we do about it but that cannot happen until people stop denying the existence of the issue in the first place.
  13. I think most of that is targeted at Ms Thenburg. I am more than happy for somebody to present credible evidence that contradicts the vast majority of scientific research that exists. It has to be a bit more than "There's still snow in Australia" though.
  14. Indeed. The confusion between weather and global climate is one that is made too often as well as the use of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change interchangeably which appears to be either a wilful attempt to cloud the issue or a determined ignorance of the changing awareness of the local impacts of man made carbon emissions. There is also the desire to take a collection of personal anecdotes and somehow use that as a credible argument against vast amounts of actual data collected by actual scientists. The greatest indicator of the worthiness of what Ms Thunberg has to say is the collection of folk lining up to attempt to discredit her. If she really is a "Petulant Child" then she should be ignored, that's what you do with petulant children. What she is is a threat to the established order and they're running scared. To FP's comment about solutions, there are solutions but none of them are free. They will require everybody to make changes to their lifestyles (not necessarily for the worse, but people don't like change) and as a global society we're not ready for that yet. See comments in this post as evidence or look back at the outraged frothing over the plastic bag ban. We live in democracies which means that change will only happen with the consent of people, for them to give that consent they first need to be made aware, and then be persuaded of the facts. Once that is done then we can begin to look at solutions. This is the first step in a long journey.
  15. monkie


    Armando Iannucci claims he stopped making British political satire because he was becoming too good at predicting the future!
  • Create New...