Yep and Scenario 4 is not a million miles from the route we have taken and the line is showing only slightly under that scenario.
People just looking at graphs and coming up with narratives so that they can get angry about it
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (162 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
Yep and Scenario 4 is not a million miles from the route we have taken and the line is showing only slightly under that scenario.
People just looking at graphs and coming up with narratives so that they can get angry about it
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
No it’s not. Read the fucking paper and not some right wing preteens Twitter account FFS.
The “scenarios” are different lockdown easing methods not based on the unknowns in the data.
Who is at risk of dying now? They've all been vaccinated.
Bang your head on the table all you want. You accuse me of reading nonsense on twitter, from what I can see you would jump off a cliff if it came from the right source.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Also the original paper was too optimistic if anything, predicting far fewer deaths than happened.
Found this about predicting the pandemic in general:
“In early April 2020, DS and his colleagues asked 140 UK experts and more than 2,000 non-experts for quantitative predictions. Experts gave a median estimate of 30,000 Covid deaths by the end of the year, whereas the non-experts said 20,000. The truth was around 75,000; this value was in only a third of the experts’ prediction intervals and in only 10% of the non-experts’. People were both far too optimistic and confident, a common finding.”
The idea that there’s a bunch of a scare mongers out there in the science community because the mouthpiece of the business community says so is one of the more hilarious ideas of the pandemic.
Found this about predicting the pandemic in general:
“In early April 2020, DS and his colleagues asked 140 UK experts and more than 2,000 non-experts for quantitative predictions. Experts gave a median estimate of 30,000 Covid deaths by the end of the year, whereas the non-experts said 20,000. The truth was around 75,000; this value was in only a third of the experts’ prediction intervals and in only 10% of the non-experts’. People were both far too optimistic and confident, a common finding.”
The idea that there’s a bunch of a scare mongers out there in the science community because the mouthpiece of the business community says so is one of the more hilarious ideas of the pandemic.
I'm not a lockdown lover. I'm as ready for 21st June as you or anyone else.
You just keep reading things that aren't there so you can complain about it.
Hill posted something from the Daily Mail and made the point to show how shit it is. If you're complaining about scaremongering then stop reading shit rags like the daily mail.
Can you post any unacceptable coverage from a decent source?
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
The statement was that the media were producing unacceptable coverage. An article was posted by Hill which was an example of that.
I might not read the Mail, nor you, but a lot of people in this country do. Just because it triggers you doesn't mean it is discounted.
Every time someone makes a point about lifting restrictions, you are the first to jump in and push the locked doors argument.
Shit papers might be putting stupid headlines out. But any decent media outlet is not. On the whole the coverage is very balanced.
And the perception in here seems to be that SAGE are scaremongering, which is ridiculous.
I'm not pushing any locked doors argument. Just pointing out that people are working themselves into a frenzy over the world being shut forever when literally nobody is saying that... except themselves. Just jumping to conclusions at graphs without properly understanding it.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Because people are idiots and believe what they read in the Daily Mail?
It's quite simple - don't read shit media and then complain the media is shit.
Not sure what that has to do with 'type of politics' anyway.
And it's not just the Daily Mail, you're doing the same thing but with this graph.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Im not sure shit science journalism is particularly party political.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I think the experts didn't expect to have such an incompetent PM and govt to deal with getting in the way of plans for fear of being unpopular.
Sad thing is it probably actually worked out as they wanted. Tens of thousands more have died than should be people are accepting of that and the vaccine rollout has given them a hug boost. Had the been responsible and those lives saved no-one would have known it could've been this bad and they'd all have had a go at Johnson et al for restricting liberties and scaremongering and they'd have got hammered in the local elections for it. They're literally being rewarded for choosing to let people die rather than be unpopular.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
For me the vaccination rollout could prove a big difference between the figures for tests and those for hospitalisations/deaths.
To my understanding, the vaccine is there to reduce the serious symptoms that result in the worst case scenario of needing hospital treatment. If that happens then deaths will reduce due to that anyway, plus there will be better capacity to treat those that do become in danger of it, unlike before where they were having to make choices of who to put on a ventilator. Part of the reason the older/vulnerable age groups fared so badly is because those were the first ones to be refused/taken off ventilators because they were less likely to survive, so they didn't and that data further supported the conclusion that the elderly and vulnerable were at far greater risk of dying. Not saying that it was wrong, just that it created a vicious circle that led further support to that conclusion.
Data shows old/vulnerable people more likely to die - old/vulnerable people are those denied the help when capacity is reached - more old/vulnerable people die than those in other groups - data shows old/vulnerable people more likely to die etc etc.
To my understanding, the vaccine is there to reduce the serious symptoms that result in the worst case scenario of needing hospital treatment. If that happens then deaths will reduce due to that anyway, plus there will be better capacity to treat those that do become in danger of it, unlike before where they were having to make choices of who to put on a ventilator. Part of the reason the older/vulnerable age groups fared so badly is because those were the first ones to be refused/taken off ventilators because they were less likely to survive, so they didn't and that data further supported the conclusion that the elderly and vulnerable were at far greater risk of dying. Not saying that it was wrong, just that it created a vicious circle that led further support to that conclusion.
Data shows old/vulnerable people more likely to die - old/vulnerable people are those denied the help when capacity is reached - more old/vulnerable people die than those in other groups - data shows old/vulnerable people more likely to die etc etc.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
You’re a fucking imbecile.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
To be fair , people don't have a great range of options when it comes to factual media reporting
Factual reporting
Daily mail - low
Daily mirror - mixed
The sun - mixed
The guardian - mixed
The Independent - mixed
The Times - High
All but 1 falling below mostly factual reporting- shocking to say the least
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The guardian and the independent have had wretched columnists such as Polly Toynbee and Matthew Paris - they are absurd nonsense that have no interest in real world issues and lives
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
By the looks of it , the only one worth it's salt is the times
Scoring HIGH on factual reporting
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The mail on Sunday and the times were fervently anti Brexit
Yeah but you called Dan Hodges 'excellent'.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
We should have a national broadcaster held to legally binding neutrality and accuracy standards.
Oh. Wait.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that *checks notes* marketing executive who sent his children private.
Always good to hear from the man on the (significantly above average house price) street.
You’re as bad as O’Day for faux working class.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That chip gets bigger every day. The shoulder will be dislocated soon.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Exactly..so our options are extremely limited to say the least
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Point is , you all QUOTE papers and media outlets on here and the politics threads .
Yet they all are wildly unreliable at times with an extremely small amount being highly reliable.
Laugh whatever , most of you QUOTE shit
That's the only VERIFIED FACT I will post today
Yet they all are wildly unreliable at times with an extremely small amount being highly reliable.
Laugh whatever , most of you QUOTE shit
That's the only VERIFIED FACT I will post today
Point is , you all QUOTE papers and media outlets on here and the politics threads .
Yet they all are wildly unreliable at times with an extremely small amount being highly reliable.
Laugh whatever , most of you QUOTE shit
That's the only VERIFIED FACT I will post today
Yeah there's lots of shit out there, no doubt.
But there's a difference between quoting a story with actual quotes in them and posting a graph and jumping to conclusions because you don't understand it (not you as in you directly!).
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I think it’s healthy to have different slants on facts so long as one is aware. It’s the shit that everyone’s opinion is as equally valid that boils my piss. Me and Chris Whitty can have an opinion on public health and how best to limit deaths to a virus I know who I’m going to listen to. I know where many on here are coming from and I can respect their opinion based on their expertise and upbringing and experiences I find it hard when people are rigid to their unsubstantiated opinions when those who have the expertise point out their shit.
Our society is wonderful in so many ways in term of freedom of speech and thought but ffs my opinion on keepers is tainted given what I thought about Burge for 18 months and those who’ve not met joy as a for instance can think what they like from pictures or how they perceive her actions but that’s not quite the same as talking regularly. Same with the trust we can think they’re monsters cause of what they said or did when actually engaging in conversation and building relationship makes it easier to understand their motivation. Same with wasps too.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
And I should add I am as pro European as you can get but I’m much more aware of the alternative thoughts and why as a country it’s not racist to manage our border as the numbers of economic migrants coming in. Similar with Covid I’m pretty risk verse and pro listening to those in authority but those should be challenged and managed and considered against the evidence and many of you have helped me see that so thank you
To be fair Burge did have half a decent season, then crumbed (after Walsall away I think)...don’t be too hard on yourself
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Your counter argument yesterday was 'you're a virgin'. Not exactly great debating skills.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
There is no rational debate with you. Anyone that harbours even slight doubts or questions about the current situation is branded a “lockdown lover”. You’re incapable of empathy to others’ situations - you’ve demonstrated that enough times.
Literally no one has said we should remain locked down (not that we even are at the moment, don’t know whether you’ve noticed). All that’s said is that there are valid questions as to the impact of the Indian variant. The one that was hospitalising a significant number of young people over there just weeks ago. We’ve got three weeks to decide what to do, why not fucking learn from the past and use that time wisely.
But yeah, if that makes me a “lockdown lover” in your mind then sound. Go lick your neighbour or whatever you want to do.
