Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... poor old Greens ...
Mmmm. Could they not even have managed an abstention? I mean, generally I think abstentions are a big wuss-out, but very occasionally they're the better part of valour.
-
Can anyone here shed any light on this for me? Some New Brighton council housing tenants were evicted from their properties on Tuesday afternoon. The evictions were reported by both the Herald and Stuff
However, the two sources report the story rather differently. The Herald quotes Chch city councillor Chrissie Williams as saying that the properties were unsafe; while Stuff says the properties had been inspected and "green stickered", and quotes the same councillor as saying the evictions were "inhumane".
My understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act is that if a property is damaged to the point it is uninhabitable, the landlord (the council) still must give the tenant 7 days notice (s53). I can't quite believe that this is covered by the state of emergency, because I can't believe a private landlord would be allowed to tell his/her tenants they had to be gone in two (or one, depending on which source you go with) hours, and I don't see why the council would be treated differently in its role as landlord to any private landlord.
Am I missing something?
-
in modern homes the doorframe is far less likely to be in a load-bearing wall [emphasis mine]
Hmmm. What does the advice giver mean by "modern"? If he means post-1980, that's not a particularly large segment of the housing stock. But thanks for that extra detail on why they were advising against doorways. Our house is 1905, and all our doorways are in load-bearing walls, so I think I'll stick with the doorway if I'm at home.
-
OIC. Both. From oral HPV. Makes sense I guess.
Important question though: if Investigate has reported the oral sex-throat cancer link, has it also reported the vaginal sex-throat cancer link? What about the lack of any statistical link for anal sex?
-
I'll give you a clue: throat cancer.
Okay, next question: is it men, or women, or both, to whom the risk applies?
-
Oh, and more on topic - I heard of someone in Christchurch (aka Christlurch, or Christanotherlurch) who, on being woken by the quake, thought "Oh hell, if it's this bad here, everyone in Wellington must be dead!". Bless!
-
Well, if you replace "causes" with "is associated with a greater incidence of", it's actually true.
Which person gets it, the giver, or the recipient?
-
Superior snide person? Me? WTF? Please try re-reading my posts as though I was having a conversation. Okay, the numbering kind of messes that up a bit, but I was trying to be succinct.
I am sorry about making assumptions. It annoys me intensely when other people do it, and in part my posting in this thread has been attempting to dispel some assumptions about relative contributions of different diseases to overall morbidity and mortality rates, so I deserve a slap over the wrist for that.
Oh, and you can just call me Lucy, or Lucy TB if there are other Lucys (Lucies?) lurking. 'Cos using three of my names sounds a bit like a strict aunt telling me off for something. Unless that's the tone you were aiming for. Which given the "superior snide" comment, maybe you were. In which case, call me what you like and I'll be sure to ignore you in future.
Giovanni, I agree that what we should be discussing is disability-adjusted life years lost or some such, but I didn't want to appear too technical. I'd go look for them now, but it's bedtime, and I'm still recovering from the name-calling.
-
Islander,
1. you said "rural areas", not "the Coast" (I assume you mean West, rather than East?), so I was talking about NZ rural areas in general - where tobacco use is on average higher than in urban areas.
2. I thought you were talking about how the ratio between those specific causes of mortality would alter, rather than about overall causes of death - thus my question of "in which direction".
3. As I noted, my statements about the direction of those particular causes of death were assumptions. Maybe I'll look the data up later. If I can be fagged. -
In which direction, Islander? I would assume that road traffic mortality rates would be higher, traffic pollution-related mortality rates much lower, and tobacco use-related mortality rates slightly higher. Tobacco use would still come out the biggest killer.