Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3337
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby roubaixtuesday » 25 Apr 2020, 5:02pm

carpetcleaner wrote:
mjr wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/17/8-more-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/

How should one rate the accuracy of a site set up by people with views wild enough to be banned from newspaper comments pages?


Views do not have to be 'wild' to be banned from newspaper comments pages.

They just have to be off-message. The Guardian in particular is notorious for its censorship of comments it does not approve of.


Alternatively, whining internet keyboard warriors whine about the guardian failing to pander to their wing nut views and enforcing the comments policy.

carpetcleaner
Posts: 920
Joined: 14 Nov 2019, 1:25pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby carpetcleaner » 25 Apr 2020, 5:34pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
carpetcleaner wrote:
mjr wrote:How should one rate the accuracy of a site set up by people with views wild enough to be banned from newspaper comments pages?


Views do not have to be 'wild' to be banned from newspaper comments pages.

They just have to be off-message. The Guardian in particular is notorious for its censorship of comments it does not approve of.


Alternatively, whining internet keyboard warriors whine about the guardian failing to pander to their wing nut views and enforcing the comments policy.



I disagree. I'd say it is more of a case of the Guardian's moderators being under instructions to delete comments which don't adhere to the paper's left wing nut views.

It amuses me that the Guardian asks for comments and then goes delete crazy on ones it doesn't like. I especially enjoy it when an article attracts so many off-message comments that comments are turned off and all comments deleted. When they suspect this might happen they show a note which says comments will be 'pre-moderated' which is code for don't bother to say anything we don't like because we won't publish it.

All good fun.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 25 Apr 2020, 7:12pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Then we have people on here and elsewhere saying the lock down is the reason for fewer deaths on one hand but saying there's a huge spike of deaths on the other, it can't be both can it?



It is entirely possible both that there has been a huge spike in deaths (there has), and that there would have been far more without social distancing (there would)

The rest of your conspiratorial rant shames cycling uk through allowing their forum to promote it.


I think comments like yours shame Cycling UK by allowing it to promote ignorance of science/facts. But yeah, people like yourself on here don't like opinion if it doesn't match yours, deride it saying it's a conspiracy rant and say it should not be allowed, gotcha. :roll:

For one it's not a rant, it's describing exactly what the government and their 'experts' have done, how ONS are representing the deaths precisely as they have done, have you even bothered to look at the release from Thursday for the week 10/4/20? It's describing precisely how WHO have ignored bias data, we know this is true, it describes how WHO take money from big pharmaceutical companies, this is also true, including the monies they try to hide through back door methods. Far from a "rant" every aspect is true, you just chose not to check out the facts or ignore the facts because like many, like Whittey, Vallance (SmithKlineGlaxo employee) they cannot backtrack because you'll look worse than a plum, for them it's a career killer to backtrack and admit their error, same as for WHO, Trump is right in terms of investigating WHO but not for all the right reasons, just as he was correct about herd immunity but again it was to go against the grain rather than him knowing why.

And if you'd read what the forum moderators said a few weeks back, they said they would delete if posters were deliberately saying you should break the new oppressive 'laws', despite the fact that that has been done on here many times previous with regards to contesting and stating UK law is wrong/discriminatory or lacking evidence to make such a law in the first instance - similar to the cycle helmet 'laws' in some places that is costing lives directly and indirectly.

So despite your little attack, hard lines chum, it's staying if the mods actually stick to their word :lol:

reohn2
Posts: 39934
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby reohn2 » 25 Apr 2020, 8:01pm

Meanwhile Corona19 related deaths in hospital are now 20,319.
-----------------------------------------------------------

PH
Posts: 9518
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby PH » 25 Apr 2020, 8:43pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Far from a "rant" every aspect is true, you just chose not to check out the facts or ignore the facts because like many, like Whittey, Vallance (SmithKlineGlaxo employee) they cannot backtrack because you'll look worse than a plum, for them it's a career killer to backtrack and admit their error, same as for WHO,

I was reading earlier than China have locked down another city on 10 million people in the north and how that is going to badly effect their steel production at a high cost to their economy.
Just consider that for a moment, particularly how it fits in with your views above.
You tell us it was all a big mistake and now they know it but can't admit it. So second wave in China - why don't they just deny it? Keep quiet and let it pass, say it isn't happening. If your theory was right, there would be no need for that lock down, would there? Why do you think they would do that? Can you understand why people think your theory makes no sense? We were expecting Covid19 to result in a spike in deaths and we have a spike in deaths, yet you ask us to believe there's no relation, what was it, coincidence? You won't address that, you've seen the graph, can you come up with another from any time in our lifetimes that looks like that?
And please, don't be telling people they're not looking at the evidence, when all you can post it Russian propaganda sites and a couple of doctors the world has never heard of. When you did post some researched information, it turns out you don't agree with the conclusions. Everyone knows there are alternative views on this, nearly everyone knows what a small proportion of evidence supports those.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Apr 2020, 7:07pm

WHO made a decision on mortality rate based on just 68 people dying in Wuhan of 150 tested/admitted, 43 of deceased had serious underlying conditions, utterly disgraceful https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-05991-x

We also now know from studies done and published in the Lancet that immuno suppressant treatments are destroying people's immune systems, thus people who would ordinarily have gotten over their flu like illness are dying because the huge amounts of drugs are literally removing all semblance of a persons immune system, ergo they cannot naturally fight the infection, people who were showing mild to medium symtoms and possibly higher risk are being killed by their treatments. :twisted:
Additionally this describes how steroid treatments applied at the wrong time will exacerbate the condition.

"However, we should also bear in mind the side effects of these antiviral agents. For example, type I interferons including interferon α2b and interferon β are well known for their antiviral activity. Their beneficial effects at an early phase of infection are well expected. However, administration at a later stage carries the risk that they might worsen the cytokine storm and exacerbate inflammation. Notably, steroids have been experimentally used widely in the treatment of SARS and are still preferred by some Chinese physicians in the treatment of COVID-19. It is said to be capable of stopping the cytokine storm and preventing lung fibrosis. However, the window in which steroids might be beneficial to patients with COVID-19 is very narrow. In other words, steroids can only be used when SARS-CoV-2 has already been eliminated by human immune response. Otherwise, SARS-CoV-2 replication will be boosted leading to exacerbation of symptoms, substantial virus shedding, as well as increased risk for nosocomial transmission and secondary infection. In this regard, it will be of interest to determine whether the report of fungal infection in the lungs of some patients in Wuhan might be linked to misuse of steroids."

C.19 is actually leading to pneumonia, there are 1.5M -2.5M people globally dying every year from pneumonia.

mjal
Posts: 16
Joined: 4 Jul 2011, 2:22pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby mjal » 26 Apr 2020, 11:00pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Yet more backing up of the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_ ... krF-E13eOI


I have been refraining from commenting on this video in the hope that someone else would do so ; there has been a partial rebuttal but not as clear as I had hoped. So, here goes...

Has The Utility Cyclist actually watched/listened to the video? Either he has done neither or has no understanding whatsoever of statistical method/sampling etc. Mind you, the speakers in the video seem to have no grasp of these concepts either...

Within the first 5 minutes Dr Erickson (main speaker) makes the most basic and outrageous error ; he declares that the day prior to the seminar "California had 33,865 Covid cases out of a total of 280,900 tested...that's 12% of Californians are positive for Covid". This remarkable sleight-of-hand then allows him to conclude that there must then be a total of 4 million plus cases in California and therefore... a very low death rate.

Am I alone in declaring this conclusion to b a complete farrago? Can Erickson (and TUC) not see the obvious fallacy? Were those tested a random sample of the population? I suggest that many/most were already ill (perhaps in hospital) or were contacts of known cases. Dr Erickson, as I recollect, goes on to work a similar "magic" on the New York State figures ; I have not checked as I really cannot bear to watch and listen again.

This utterly nonsensical use of the "raw data" surely means that any other statements in the video are extremely suspect as, by extension, are TUC's opinions if he regards this seminar as "supportive"of his case.

I look forward to TUC's reply to my points about misuse/misunderstanding of the statistics.

PH
Posts: 9518
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby PH » 26 Apr 2020, 11:25pm

The utility cyclist wrote:WHO made a decision on mortality rate based on just 68 people dying in Wuhan of 150 tested/admitted, 43 of deceased had serious underlying conditions, utterly disgraceful https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-05991-x

That is simply not true.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Apr 2020, 11:30pm

mjal wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Yet more backing up of the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_ ... krF-E13eOI


I have been refraining from commenting on this video in the hope that someone else would do so ; there has been a partial rebuttal but not as clear as I had hoped. So, here goes...

Has The Utility Cyclist actually watched/listened to the video? Either he has done neither or has no understanding whatsoever of statistical method/sampling etc. Mind you, the speakers in the video seem to have no grasp of these concepts either...

Within the first 5 minutes Dr Erickson (main speaker) makes the most basic and outrageous error ; he declares that the day prior to the seminar "California had 33,865 Covid cases out of a total of 280,900 tested...that's 12% of Californians are positive for Covid". This remarkable sleight-of-hand then allows him to conclude that there must then be a total of 4 million plus cases in California and therefore... a very low death rate.

Am I alone in declaring this conclusion to b a complete farrago? Can Erickson (and TUC) not see the obvious fallacy? Were those tested a random sample of the population? I suggest that many/most were already ill (perhaps in hospital) or were contacts of known cases. Dr Erickson, as I recollect, goes on to work a similar "magic" on the New York State figures ; I have not checked as I really cannot bear to watch and listen again.

This utterly nonsensical use of the "raw data" surely means that any other statements in the video are extremely suspect as, by extension, are TUC's opinions if he regards this seminar as "supportive"of his case.

I look forward to TUC's reply to my points about misuse/misunderstanding of the statistics.

Let's see your test results then?
Yes they were a random selection, listen to John Ioannidis the co director of meta research at Stanford Uni who specifically talks about this testing, here's his initial thoughts about a month ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6MZy-2 ... e=emb_logo and then his update post the testing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwPqmLoZA4s&t=109s he concludes that mortality rate is 0.1% give or take.

Maybe you are more qualified than one of the worlds most eminent persons in his field :lol:
You saying something is nonsensical and yet produce zero evidence to back yourself up, it makes you look silly at best.
have another go champ

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3478
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Apr 2020, 11:31pm

PH wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:WHO made a decision on mortality rate based on just 68 people dying in Wuhan of 150 tested/admitted, 43 of deceased had serious underlying conditions, utterly disgraceful https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-05991-x

That is simply not true.

Yes it is, the 3.4% mortality rate was based upon this small amount of tests and deaths, whichever way WHO are a disgrace, they even stated that it wasn't transmittable between humans fgs, how can you trust anything these criminals say when they don't even understand the very basics :twisted:

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1605
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 26 Apr 2020, 11:36pm

The number crunchers are trying everything to keep up the doom mongering. The Nightingale in Birmingham is empty. The one in London has treated 25 people in the last fortnight. There really is no huge disaster, just a SARS outbreak that escaped Asia. It’s a joke, always has been, always will be.

Labrat
Posts: 191
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby Labrat » 27 Apr 2020, 12:06am

Marcus Aurelius wrote:The number crunchers are trying everything to keep up the doom mongering. The Nightingale in Birmingham is empty. The one in London has treated 25 people in the last fortnight. There really is no huge disaster, just a SARS outbreak that escaped Asia. It’s a joke, always has been, always will be.


That just indicates that the (entirely unprecedented) steps taken to minimise the spread are working.

wirral_cyclist
Posts: 781
Joined: 17 May 2010, 9:25pm
Location: Wirral Merseyside

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby wirral_cyclist » 27 Apr 2020, 12:14am

It is only affecting people with pre-existing conditions it appears, sadly these pre-existing conditions might be undiagnosed.

I'd like to see uc and ma both lick a known covid carrier to prove just how safe it is, hell why not volunteer to help by drinking bleach, OK maybe not bleach, but no risk from Covid according to you, and the donald.
And as for uc saying "still preferred by chinese medics" makes me think of bear bile, rhino horn, unicorn hair, rocking horse leavings and snake oil salesmen.

Change bait, it's too old, too smelly and ineffectual.

I call T(oilet) ROLL or BOT.

sizbut
Posts: 83
Joined: 2 Oct 2018, 11:56pm

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby sizbut » 27 Apr 2020, 12:23am

Radio 4's The World This Weekend today talked to the administrator of a large hospital in London. Their ventilators were only 80% occupied. No problem, scare stories, you're right. Ignore the fact that they had increased the number of ventilators by 5 times, i.e. in your world, they shouldn't have done anything, the other three-quarters of people needing ventilators should have just prayed.

...or go elsewhere such as a Nightingale hospital. If the Nightingale hospitals turn out to be largely unneeded, it will be in good part down to the work done in existing hospitals to expand and convert their existing resources to cope and we should give a pray of thanks. But even with that expansion and with strict social measures in place, they have been running close to full capacity (unless you think 80% occupied leaves a good safety margin).

PH
Posts: 9518
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

Postby PH » 27 Apr 2020, 2:11am

The utility cyclist wrote:Yes it is, the 3.4% mortality rate was based upon this small amount of tests and deaths, whichever way WHO are a disgrace, they even stated that it wasn't transmittable between humans fgs, how can you trust anything these criminals say when they don't even understand the very basics :twisted:

Very first line of your link
"The rapid emergence of COVID-19 in Wuhan city, Hubei Province, China, has resulted in thousands of deaths"
There is no disputing that is there?