By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
If someone could let me know if he gets any scrutiny from the press as to why he ignored the advice, didn’t do this over half term for two weeks, and his culpability for the human and economic damage that ensues, I’d be most grateful.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 20:59 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Let me elaborate...
The data doesn’t show levels of testing between August compared to October so doesn’t show whether the disease is really rising or whether tests are just more abundant. There needs to be comparative data sets.
It doesn’t show whether the strain has weakened or not in that time as there’s no data on the severity of the cases - herd mentality was meant to achieve exactly this ie: increasing anti-bodies naturally among the mass to weaken the strain’s effectiveness.
There’s no data or projections for who may have had it and not diagnosed or reported it across the periods presented.
In short, we’re being presented data as fact without any ability to question it. Until then, it’s not science as you incorrectly state, it’s statistics and empirical at that.
The graphs were hospital admissions and death rates plus r calculated from the data that was available.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 20:59 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Let me elaborate...
The data doesn’t show levels of testing between August compared to October so doesn’t show whether the disease is really rising or whether tests are just more abundant. There needs to be comparative data sets.
It doesn’t show whether the strain has weakened or not in that time as there’s no data on the severity of the cases - herd mentality was meant to achieve exactly this ie: increasing anti-bodies naturally among the mass to weaken the strain’s effectiveness.
There’s no data or projections for who may have had it and not diagnosed or reported it across the periods presented.
In short, we’re being presented data as fact without any ability to question it. Until then, it’s not science as you incorrectly state, it’s statistics and empirical at that.
"The data doesn’t show levels of testing between August compared to October so doesn’t show whether the disease is really rising or whether tests are just more abundant. There needs to be comparative data sets."
This is totally irrelevant if you look at the death numbers which are steadily rising and 3 times above the original "reasonable worst case" from 3 weeks ago.
"It doesn’t show whether the strain has weakened or not in that time as there’s no data on the severity of the cases - herd mentality was meant to achieve exactly this ie: increasing anti-bodies naturally among the mass to weaken the strain’s effectiveness."
Why would the strain have weakened over the course of a few weeks? The strain we have mostly now is the Spanish strain from June and it hasn't changed since then. With regards to antibodies they have been shown to be decreasing across England so that point is incorrect.
"There’s no data or projections for who may have had it and not diagnosed or reported it across the periods presented."
Once again irrelevant if you look at the death data or hospitalisations and ward utilisations.
"In short, we’re being presented data as fact without any ability to question it. Until then, it’s not science as you incorrectly state, it’s statistics and empirical at that."
There is plenty of data and information out there to analyse the statistics. I think you are seeing what you would like to see and to be frank, your interpretation is incorrect.
SB
[Post edited 31 Oct 2020 21:04]
7
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:04 - Oct 31 with 3499 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 20:50 - Oct 31 by giant_stow
Ok slyou're clearly not convinced (!) so what do you think the real state of play is with public health, the virus and any risks large or small?
Well you have to look at the numbers and a Covid death doesn't necessarily mean that the virus actually caused the death.
"A clear alternate cause"
To start with the Government needs to make clear those that died from a clear alternate cause, it helps no one to lump all this data together when having to make a decision on putting a country into lockdown and all that it means for peoples lives.
-2
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:05 - Oct 31 with 3505 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 20:54 - Oct 31 by StokieBlue
What a load of rubbish.
The trend is absolutely clear. Lets hope it doesn't affect you or anyone you love.
SB
[Post edited 31 Oct 2020 20:56]
“The trend is absolutely clear?”
You say that without any sense of irony without even being able to question the data sets. Skip the objective criticism, let me help you with the hypodermic needle.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:05 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
“The trend is absolutely clear?”
You say that without any sense of irony without even being able to question the data sets. Skip the objective criticism, let me help you with the hypodermic needle.
I'm perfectly capable of questioning the data - you've misinterpreted it or used faulty assumptions to get to your conclusion.
I've responded in more detail to one of your other posts.
SB
4
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:06 - Oct 31 with 3486 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:04 - Oct 31 by Bluesquid
Well you have to look at the numbers and a Covid death doesn't necessarily mean that the virus actually caused the death.
"A clear alternate cause"
To start with the Government needs to make clear those that died from a clear alternate cause, it helps no one to lump all this data together when having to make a decision on putting a country into lockdown and all that it means for peoples lives.
Old ground that has already been dug over. If you prefer to look at excess deaths it is no different.
Covid itself leads to pneumonia that causes death. If someone with a heart condition dies of it because they have Covid when they would have survived without it doesn't mean COvid didn't kill them.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:07 - Oct 31 by Nthsuffolkblue
Old ground that has already been dug over. If you prefer to look at excess deaths it is no different.
Covid itself leads to pneumonia that causes death. If someone with a heart condition dies of it because they have Covid when they would have survived without it doesn't mean COvid didn't kill them.
On your analysis, cancer hardly kills anyone.
You have been told before.
You must of missed this bit - "A clear alternate cause".
Want me to repeat that? Don't dodge it now, ok?
"A clear alternate cause".
Which means of course - a clear alternate cause. You got that now?
Ok, one more time..."A clear alternate cause".
[Post edited 31 Oct 2020 21:18]
-4
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:13 - Oct 31 with 3466 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:04 - Oct 31 by Bluesquid
Well you have to look at the numbers and a Covid death doesn't necessarily mean that the virus actually caused the death.
"A clear alternate cause"
To start with the Government needs to make clear those that died from a clear alternate cause, it helps no one to lump all this data together when having to make a decision on putting a country into lockdown and all that it means for peoples lives.
Even so, if the hospitals are filling up at an alarming rate, we've got a problem, no matter how deaths are classified, no?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 20:59 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Let me elaborate...
The data doesn’t show levels of testing between August compared to October so doesn’t show whether the disease is really rising or whether tests are just more abundant. There needs to be comparative data sets.
It doesn’t show whether the strain has weakened or not in that time as there’s no data on the severity of the cases - herd mentality was meant to achieve exactly this ie: increasing anti-bodies naturally among the mass to weaken the strain’s effectiveness.
There’s no data or projections for who may have had it and not diagnosed or reported it across the periods presented.
In short, we’re being presented data as fact without any ability to question it. Until then, it’s not science as you incorrectly state, it’s statistics and empirical at that.
What on earth are you on about?
Hospitalisations are generally on the rise.
Fatalities are also up.
What the flying eff does that have to do with testing?
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:01 - Oct 31 by Nthsuffolkblue
The graphs were hospital admissions and death rates plus r calculated from the data that was available.
How does level of testing affect any of these?
Hospital data reports are only one side of the story, no? The end result, the point of eventuality.
This data is one lens, not the complete story on where COVID is at. If there are more tests being done and more positive readings it would incur more hospital admissions. It doesn’t mean COVID is rising or as aggressive, it means there’s more admissions and related deaths are more understood. Plenty of people probably had COVID in Jan but there weren’t any tests.
Is COVID as severe a risk as it has been previously? Has it weakened? Have tests captured it early enough to make it treatable in time? No idea. There are questions I’d like to know answers to.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:17 - Oct 31 by Bluesquid
Are they really filling up at an alarming rate?
About normal for the time of year i think.
Go talk to a front line healthcare professional working in a hospital and ask if its normal for the time of year?
You are another disgraceful poster on here, too many of them about on this forum being allowed to spread their bile or make deeply unpleasant comments.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:23 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Hospital data reports are only one side of the story, no? The end result, the point of eventuality.
This data is one lens, not the complete story on where COVID is at. If there are more tests being done and more positive readings it would incur more hospital admissions. It doesn’t mean COVID is rising or as aggressive, it means there’s more admissions and related deaths are more understood. Plenty of people probably had COVID in Jan but there weren’t any tests.
Is COVID as severe a risk as it has been previously? Has it weakened? Have tests captured it early enough to make it treatable in time? No idea. There are questions I’d like to know answers to.
"If there are more tests being done and more positive readings it would incur more hospital admissions."
This is false. Hospital admissions are not based on testing positive for C19, they are based on the condition of the individual.
" It doesn’t mean COVID is rising"
This is false. We know C19 is rising due to the associated hospital admissions. You don't have to have comparable testing data because that is the end game of C19. You can dismiss anything with the logically flawed approach you have taken.
"Is COVID as severe a risk as it has been previously? Has it weakened? Have tests captured it early enough to make it treatable in time? No idea. There are questions I’d like to know answers to."
If you don't know the answers it's probably sensible not to make posts rubbishing all the data presented, especially when your interpretation is incorrect.
SB
[Post edited 31 Oct 2020 21:27]
4
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:28 - Oct 31 with 3358 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:14 - Oct 31 by jeera
What on earth are you on about?
Hospitalisations are generally on the rise.
Fatalities are also up.
What the flying eff does that have to do with testing?
Are you some denier or something?
Of course I’m not a denier, that would be absurd but I won’t look at a data set and take it on face value because a government official tells me it’s fact, that would be more absurd, no?
Tests have everything to do with this as does our ability to learn and compile data now we’re more aware of making accurate prognosis and diagnosis. The massive spike to me suggests we’ve become adept at understanding the disease’s affect, not the disease itself or how to tackle it.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:23 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Hospital data reports are only one side of the story, no? The end result, the point of eventuality.
This data is one lens, not the complete story on where COVID is at. If there are more tests being done and more positive readings it would incur more hospital admissions. It doesn’t mean COVID is rising or as aggressive, it means there’s more admissions and related deaths are more understood. Plenty of people probably had COVID in Jan but there weren’t any tests.
Is COVID as severe a risk as it has been previously? Has it weakened? Have tests captured it early enough to make it treatable in time? No idea. There are questions I’d like to know answers to.
What do you mean, you don't know?
There are scientific/medical articles published every week. There are news articles covering this.
Read the things.
You were just spinning the 'herd immunity' line, which show you are another one who is banging out the same sh1t as 6 months ago with authority despite no idea what you're talking about.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:28 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Of course I’m not a denier, that would be absurd but I won’t look at a data set and take it on face value because a government official tells me it’s fact, that would be more absurd, no?
Tests have everything to do with this as does our ability to learn and compile data now we’re more aware of making accurate prognosis and diagnosis. The massive spike to me suggests we’ve become adept at understanding the disease’s affect, not the disease itself or how to tackle it.
You haven't looked at anything properly, you're just spouting nonsense.
Good to see one denier gone anyway.
Squid had become insufferable.
Edit: Frankly you're just throwing words onto the page hoping to sound clever.
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:25 - Oct 31 by N2_Blue
Go talk to a front line healthcare professional working in a hospital and ask if its normal for the time of year?
You are another disgraceful poster on here, too many of them about on this forum being allowed to spread their bile or make deeply unpleasant comments.
He's not, he's been asked to stop posting this sort of nonsense before so I don't think he can have too many complaints.
6
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:40 - Oct 31 with 3306 views
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:28 - Oct 31 by Keaneish
Of course I’m not a denier, that would be absurd but I won’t look at a data set and take it on face value because a government official tells me it’s fact, that would be more absurd, no?
Tests have everything to do with this as does our ability to learn and compile data now we’re more aware of making accurate prognosis and diagnosis. The massive spike to me suggests we’ve become adept at understanding the disease’s affect, not the disease itself or how to tackle it.
"The massive spike to me suggests we’ve become adept at..."
I’ve turned the c^*+ off on 21:26 - Oct 31 by StokieBlue
"If there are more tests being done and more positive readings it would incur more hospital admissions."
This is false. Hospital admissions are not based on testing positive for C19, they are based on the condition of the individual.
" It doesn’t mean COVID is rising"
This is false. We know C19 is rising due to the associated hospital admissions. You don't have to have comparable testing data because that is the end game of C19. You can dismiss anything with the logically flawed approach you have taken.
"Is COVID as severe a risk as it has been previously? Has it weakened? Have tests captured it early enough to make it treatable in time? No idea. There are questions I’d like to know answers to."
If you don't know the answers it's probably sensible not to make posts rubbishing all the data presented, especially when your interpretation is incorrect.
SB
[Post edited 31 Oct 2020 21:27]
You’ve contradicted yourself a few times here. More positive tests would naturally lead to more admissions. Yes it depends on individual circumstance but how is there conjecture in that. With a big enough data set that would be the case.
Again, it doesn’t mean COVID is ‘rising’ it could mean our ability to test, admit, treat and record data has improved. It could have been equally as high prior to this only deaths weren’t occurring as frequently. Perhaps the strain has mutated in certain regions, perhaps deaths previously weren’t attributed to COVID but something else so it’s not flawed logic - there are unanswered questions in the data presented.
I’ll leave it here. I love your magnanimous point about ‘not understanding the data’ (inferring you do) when you are privy to a nano-fraction of it. I don’t know the answers, I’m raising questions because I don’t. You don’t know the answers but you’re presenting them like fact!? It’s a strange logic.
Nonsense quip about ‘love ones being affected’. I’m questioning data not denying their existence.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
