Coronavirus Pandemic

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Raab, Vallance and Whitty are up today.

Didn't think I would be considering Raab as any part of the A Team but here we are.

[Niall_Quinn]

Is that the course which says that the best way of assessing things is to look at a single number and pay no heed to how that number is changing over time? And it’s also important to find some bigger numbers and conclude that if the single number I’m looking at isn’t the highest then it must be a good number?
Am I getting this right?

Meanwhile, in the real world...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ience-analysis

Unfortunately no, you still appear to be clueless.

Unpacking your misdirection and deceit, what you actual did was about as unscientific as it's possible to be.

You started with your conclusion (ORANGE MAN BAD), triggered by my casual mention that the US seemed to be doing quite well and handling the outbreak, among others. That was quite literally it, the comment that has sent you hurtling through this farce. I hadn't even mentioned the Orange Man, as far as I recall. That's how easy it is to trigger you.

You then concocted an unscientific method by which to "prove" your conclusion, and then you published your spurious result in a graph.

At no time did you specify the characteristics of the samples you were comparing, nor did you add form of context.

In a supreme act of oversimplification, which you later concluded was actually more valid than a scientific approach, you presented headline data points from two incompatible data sets aligned (to much tooting of your own horn as if some deep statistical relevance had emerged) along a linear timeframe.

Your great revelation was that the US had more cases and more deaths than Italy. And that's it! Conclusion verified - the US was handling this in a very bad manner because cases and deaths had exceeded those in Italy - ORANGE MAN BAD!

Now even a fool can see the glaringly obvious flaw in your (let's be kind) "mistaken" methodology. It doesn't take a statistician to point this out, anyone with basic common sense will suffice.

So I suggested you should try to at least apply the very basics of statistical analysis by partially normalising the data sets, population being the slap-you-in-the-face obvious candidate, especially as I had pointed to the per-million based data as the most valid indicator, notwithstanding the overall crude nature of the data set to begin with.

Most obligingly, perhaps because you couldn't interpret your own adjusted findings or maybe because you felt compelled to comply but surmised you could gloss over the catastrophic collapse of your conclusion by whipping up a snow job thereafter (see all subsequent related postings you have made), you performed the grade school arithmetic and your results were now entirely reversed. Was that a horrible moment for you? Or did you still not realise at that point?

Then, being the sort of person you are, you tried to paint me as being unscientific. My "single figure" (which is in fact a moving average that incorporate all other data, and therefore of course the most comparative data point in the set) was your focus of ridicule, maybe not even because you were being dishonest but possibly because you genuinely can't figure these simple concepts out.

And then you got your shovel and started digging deeper and deeper into the snow, only pausing occasionally to gloat over the death toll in the UK.

Meanwhile, Easter came and went with you, the virtuous Christian, spending your time politicking and trying to prevail in a fuck-up of you own making. No prayers for the dead, no moments of reflection, no mention of your religion at all. Which is fine. Maybe it's a private thing. But I found it odd for you to be pulling out all the stops during a religious festival to maximise the suffering of others for some perceived political gain that surely is insignificant anyway?

It's almost demonic. Certainly demented.

As I said, you should read through those articles I sent to you to help you with the problems you are having.

Regardless, this is the final time this will be explained to you. Either you can pull yourself together and be a man and accept what has transpired, which I'm telling you again is of no significance anyway, or you can persist. For myself, I'm not even interested in this particular debate any more (considering the facts are accumulating daily in my favour, they can speak for me). I'm more interested in the track record. This isn't the first time you've used these methods and this isn't the first time you have displayed such fundamental dishonesty.

Going back to that Wenger spat, where you started moving posts and shutting down threads and having a generally hissy fit, I couldn't help but notice that long after you caused that big fuss by censoring me for mentioning a subject you deemed to be old news in the wrong place, you then went on to comment on and defend Wenger for months thereafter and all over the forum. And you do it whenever his name comes up, like a reverse Orange Man trigger.

And it's this basic dishonesty in your character that fascinates me. So sometimes I get drawn in when I probably shouldn't.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Ah good the plan is working.

What plan?

[McNamara That Ghost...]

BBC live text:



BBC.

Poor bears.

Dying in droves.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

It seems every feed is being sabotaged.

[Niall_Quinn]

These journalists really are the lowest form of life.

They know fucking well that had any democratic nation bolted out of the gate by locking the whole shit down from day one it would have been the media moaning the loudest. The same hacks were all breathlessly talking about the dramatic actions taken by the Chinese regime and you can look back through their crappy reporting to see them conclude such measures wouldn't be possible in a free country. They're literally reversed their positions so they can be critical in hindsight.

Most of them also lapped up the herd immunity bullshit. But they don't mention that now. And the majority jumped all over Trump when he shut down travel, many calling him a xenophobe.

Hopefully somebody is out there writing the detailed story of the media behaviour during this period. It will be a sorry tale.

[Niall_Quinn]

It seems every feed is being sabotaged.

Sky News on YT is fine.

[Niall_Quinn]

13 April and still the discussion on masks goes on. Take it as read the "scientists" advising the government know the answer but have a supply side agenda for prevaricating. But what about the media? There's an avalanche of evidence out there any half decent journalist could have reported. And how difficult is it to produce these masks anyway, compared to a ventilator or training up the staff to use it? Surely we have the industrial capacity to pump out billions of these simple products in no time flat? If everyone had been wearing masks from the outset the rate of infection would have been slowed dramatically. That's what they claim they wanted, isn't it? So the hospitals weren't overwhelmed?

None of this squares away and the media continues to report nothing. They are meant to question, not parrot, not accuse, not blame.

566 more deaths in Italy. That makes no sense either, if this "curve" thing is real and the stated incubation and disease stages are as reported. Their own health services have claimed these numbers are "generous" and could be as low as a sixth of the recorded total. So why isn't somebody reporting on that? It's not some theory coming from a bedroom blogger. This is their own health service. Why has it been reduced to a simple daily death toll and zero serious questions thereafter? Why is Australias's data so markedly different? Or Iceland's? Or Canada's.

There's a huge space in media for a non-propaganda service to start reporting real news.

Oh wait... Assange is dying in prison. The last honest news service that tried to go mainstream.

[Niall_Quinn]

Soros chips in some helpful insanity:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/our...bolish-family/

[Letters]

Actually they all do but only to say just what you did

There was a Young Ones programme of The Reunion once, and Ryan said he felt like he was among much cooler, funnier people than him, but apparently they all valued him

True

Had a look at his IMDB profile and he never did much of note afterwards.
Funny how that can happen when the other 3 all made it big in different ways.