Ok so, the NI #motherandbabyhomes report and its ROI counterpart are not directly comparable for many reasons. However, the NI report models some best practice that deserves to be highlighted/praised.

I (obviously) haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. (But at a first glance, it strikes me as well-written, so I have it on my list).
Like the ROI Commissioners, the academic authors here have huge power over the story. They carefully make themselves accountable for their scholarship and its effects. So here are some good things:
1) The Report attributes its origins to recommendations of UN Treaty bodies. It doesn't engage in sustained human-rights-based analysis, but doesn't ignore it either.
2) The researchers behind the report were appointed following a competitive tendering process.
3) The report is frank and open (pp. 7 and 8) about the challenges in accessing records held by religious orgs. and carefully points out the harms to survivors associated with an ethos of secrecy.
4) The report is clear on its methodology (and especially on its approach to oral history pp.8-18) including being open about places where it was more difficult to access and engage survivors.
4) Rather than suggest that trauma undermines witnessing, it directly addresses issues of collective memory and authenticity p. 18. This is discussed in detail again in the Appendices in respectful terms.
4) Testimonies are reproduced at some length in Chapter 4 & Appendix 2. They are anonymised, and direct quotes are held together with researchers' commentary. They present as coherent, important narratives.
5) There is some substantial effort to test how the adoption law applied in practice - to the extent that this was possible given limited records. It acknowledges that the legality of adoptions cannot be taken for granted and further research is needed.
5) It is willing to stay with the patchiness of the available information on the complexities of cross-border adoption practices. Gaps and contradications do not mean that there is 'nothing to see here'.
6) It is willing to point to places where its findings clash with the HIAI's (eg p. 35)
7) It is willing to note that, although the laundries may not have made substantial profits, profits are not the whole story - p. 37
8) It takes all aspects of women's agency seriously. For instance, it discusses running away as an exit path - p. 39
9) It engages directly with academic and activist criticisms of the McAleese Report, and with relevant academic literature. This demonstrates rigour, and responsiveness to the wider context.
Again, this isn't the end of this process or this story. This is a report that flags concerns and complexities - that was the job. But I think it's a really intriguing start.

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.

While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.

Here's how: 🧵

One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.

Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:

https://t.co/tDce0MwO61


Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.

Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):


Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.

If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.

Simple example:

Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant

1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%

You May Also Like