Categories Society
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Since it is a lovely peaceful Saturday morning, I clearly have to rectify that. Therefore: the World Rugby Transgender Policy and Nye Bevan.
Thread.
This is the WR policy, and explanation by Ross Tucker, who was part of the Working Group. I presented to the Workshop in February on liability, but wasn’t part of the Working Group itself. It’s worth reading this before going further.
And this is the statue of Nye Bevan in Cardiff. Anyone who goes to matches in Cardiff knows it. It’s right by the Castle; more importantly, it’s right by the Rummer. Please God, we’ll get back to see it on a match day soon.
However, what I'm talking about here isn't his comment that he learnt everything he needed to know about politics by dealing with rugby committees, but the one that made the title of the last decent Manic Street Preachers album:
"This is my truth, tell me yours."
What has struck me in the debate/flame-war over the proposed policy is that a large part of this is conflicting truths.
I know that sounds impossible. The truth is the truth is the truth, right? There can only be one truth, not truths, right?
Wrong. Here's why.
Thread.
This is the WR policy, and explanation by Ross Tucker, who was part of the Working Group. I presented to the Workshop in February on liability, but wasn’t part of the Working Group itself. It’s worth reading this before going further.
The World Rugby Transgender guideline is now out, and fully available here: https://t.co/RUZ7QrlodQ You\u2019ll also find a document called FAQs which tries to answer some common questions. We firmly believe it is the right thing in an emotive issue, for many reasons.
— Ross Tucker (@Scienceofsport) October 9, 2020
And this is the statue of Nye Bevan in Cardiff. Anyone who goes to matches in Cardiff knows it. It’s right by the Castle; more importantly, it’s right by the Rummer. Please God, we’ll get back to see it on a match day soon.
However, what I'm talking about here isn't his comment that he learnt everything he needed to know about politics by dealing with rugby committees, but the one that made the title of the last decent Manic Street Preachers album:
"This is my truth, tell me yours."
What has struck me in the debate/flame-war over the proposed policy is that a large part of this is conflicting truths.
I know that sounds impossible. The truth is the truth is the truth, right? There can only be one truth, not truths, right?
Wrong. Here's why.
It has clearly been too much to ask. Now that the right has been moved to violence you'd think everybody would go "whoa ok, let's chill" but instead it's full speed ahead on hyprocisy, censorship, and escalation.
You could take the next week to quiet down, reflect on how you contributed to getting here, and then have the usual transition markers, but instead you need to escalate things by trying to throw the guy out.
And not just him, but everyone else remotely associated with him. You created this situation by taking away every avenue people had to try to change direction and have driven them ever further towards the options we do not want them to take.
The Tea Party was the perfect expression of what we expect of voters dissatisfied with the direction of the country to do. They protested peacefully, spoke to their reps at the designated times and places, and ultimately threw the bums out by voting.
The response to this was to label them all racists and for the new bums to promptly spit in their faces. When they tried to rally around everyone except the pre-designated "next-in-line" guy, they got labelled as whackobirds and ignored.
Is it too much to ask for the leaders of both parties start acting like the adults in the room and stop treating political opponents like enemies of the State. If it is too much to ask for then the end of this country is inevitable. And I honestly don't believe that is hyperbole.
— Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) January 8, 2021
You could take the next week to quiet down, reflect on how you contributed to getting here, and then have the usual transition markers, but instead you need to escalate things by trying to throw the guy out.
And not just him, but everyone else remotely associated with him. You created this situation by taking away every avenue people had to try to change direction and have driven them ever further towards the options we do not want them to take.
The Tea Party was the perfect expression of what we expect of voters dissatisfied with the direction of the country to do. They protested peacefully, spoke to their reps at the designated times and places, and ultimately threw the bums out by voting.
The response to this was to label them all racists and for the new bums to promptly spit in their faces. When they tried to rally around everyone except the pre-designated "next-in-line" guy, they got labelled as whackobirds and ignored.
There is much furore over Ag-LFDs again this week, with the arguments often over-simplified, & even turning toxic.
It doesn't help that the government have, & are continuing to, lie their way through the pandemic.
But that doesn't mean Ag-LFDs are all bad...
A thread 👇
1/
MHRA yesterday ruled that Ag-LFDs should not be used in schools to regularly test contacts of cases to reduce time spent in isolation.
This is a risky approach, & there is no data of the effectiveness (or cost-effectiveness), so this a fair decision.
This ruling, while probably correct & fair, will likely further damage public trust in testing, particularly as the debate rages on with government saying one thing and the MHRA another.
So, I thought it time for me to cut through the noise & ask - What does the data show?
3/
Much of the discourse over the past few months has been obsessing over the ‘poor’ performance of Ag-LFDs.
The principal argument has been that the Liverpool testing pilot showed they only find 40% of infections. But does this figure actually show us anything meaningful?
4/
The Liverpool community testing pilot evaluated asymptomatic testing using Ag-LFDs. They ran a sub-sample of tests of 5689 individuals, from 48 different testing sites, which were swabbed (supervised self-swab) for Ag-LFD and PCR side by side.
https://t.co/W8Rksg3dql
5/
It doesn't help that the government have, & are continuing to, lie their way through the pandemic.
But that doesn't mean Ag-LFDs are all bad...
A thread 👇
1/
MHRA yesterday ruled that Ag-LFDs should not be used in schools to regularly test contacts of cases to reduce time spent in isolation.
This is a risky approach, & there is no data of the effectiveness (or cost-effectiveness), so this a fair decision.
This ruling, while probably correct & fair, will likely further damage public trust in testing, particularly as the debate rages on with government saying one thing and the MHRA another.
So, I thought it time for me to cut through the noise & ask - What does the data show?
3/
Much of the discourse over the past few months has been obsessing over the ‘poor’ performance of Ag-LFDs.
The principal argument has been that the Liverpool testing pilot showed they only find 40% of infections. But does this figure actually show us anything meaningful?
4/
The Liverpool community testing pilot evaluated asymptomatic testing using Ag-LFDs. They ran a sub-sample of tests of 5689 individuals, from 48 different testing sites, which were swabbed (supervised self-swab) for Ag-LFD and PCR side by side.
https://t.co/W8Rksg3dql
5/