Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[PH]

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
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

You could look at the very evidence you quote, the conclusions are not the ones you draw. here's a sample
"It suggests we have solid ground for optimism about the possibility of eventually opening up our society and gaining back our lives...Sooner rather than later with full control and a data driven approach."
"I would definitely not blame the WHO..."
"There is an excess of deaths when the health system collapses, we've seen that..."
So you want to pick out bits of the research but ignore the conclusions? And then suggest other people look silly

[mjal]

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
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

I really wonder where and how to begin. Shall I try a series of easy-to-understand statements / questions which lead to a logical conclusion?

1. You use the video in support of your opinions re Covid-19 : yes/no?

2. Do you understand the concept of random sampling in statistics : yes/no?

3. Do you really believe that, at a time of scarcity of coronavirus tests, that ALL of the 280,000 tests were randomly administered : yes/no?

4. Do you understand the basic statistical concept that one cannot extrapolate from a particular case (a relatively small number of persons tested) to a general one (the population as a whole) unless those tested are representative of the total population i.e (usually) randomly selected : yes/no?

Your answers should (hopefully) be : yes, yes, no, yes. If questions 2-4 are a problem, please do a little reading online.

Another deep breath...

Erickson abuses numbers (3) and (4) and possibly has no grasp of (2) either. This is why I call the video a farrago and nonsensical ; there is no need to reference any external sources.

Your offering of this seriously flawed video therefore casts great doubt on your opinions on this pandemic.

If you cannot understand my points, please seek advice.

PS: Ioannidis ,incidentally ,is quite clear that the tests in question were NOT administered on a random basis. He also reckons that 10,000 American deaths would be a "good outcome" ; today's figure is 58,640 (ref : Worldometer).

[The utility cyclist]

Oh look, control by government and forced vaccinations, didn't take long, they can take all your possessions, they can knock your house down, they can force you into hospital, they can force you from going somewhere, they can arrest you and give you no notice whatsoever.
Someone not wanting to get vaccine is essentially is a criminal of the state
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzJpRvS ... wUdJ400zrs

[The utility cyclist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3nptwY50I

[Oldjohnw]

People are dying in the thousands in care homes. That doesn't happen with seasonal flu.

[Postboxer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3nptwY50I

I got to 2:03 before he clearly lies so gave up watching.

Edit, now watched a further 16 seconds before another huge lie. I wonder how many more he squeezes into the remaining 9 minutes but what would be the point of watching such unreliable information?

2nd Edit, Seems I quoted the wrong post, I actually meant to quote this one, I haven't watched the one quoted above.

Oh look, control by government and forced vaccinations, didn't take long, they can take all your possessions, they can knock your house down, they can force you into hospital, they can force you from going somewhere, they can arrest you and give you no notice whatsoever.
Someone not wanting to get vaccine is essentially is a criminal of the state
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzJpRvS ... wUdJ400zrs

[roubaixtuesday]

For the mods and cycling uk:

You're in breach of govt advice allowing this material to be promoted on your site.

[[XAP]Bob]

I'd suggest that the video (which I haven't watched) is being discussed and fairly well criticised by people who seem to have a fair grasp of statistics.

My own stats are a little rusty, but I still have a number of my degree text books on a shelf behind me if I need to refresh.

[Bonefishblues]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3nptwY50I

I got to 2:03 before he clearly lies so gave up watching.

Edit, now watched a further 16 seconds before another huge lie. I wonder how many more he squeezes into the remaining 9 minutes but what would be the point of watching such unreliable information?

I'm puzzled - it's a 4 minute clip?

[Postboxer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3nptwY50I

I got to 2:03 before he clearly lies so gave up watching.

Edit, now watched a further 16 seconds before another huge lie. I wonder how many more he squeezes into the remaining 9 minutes but what would be the point of watching such unreliable information?

I'm puzzled - it's a 4 minute clip?

My mistake. Quoted wrong post, should have been the post above.

[Bonefishblues]

I got to 2:03 before he clearly lies so gave up watching.

Edit, now watched a further 16 seconds before another huge lie. I wonder how many more he squeezes into the remaining 9 minutes but what would be the point of watching such unreliable information?

I'm puzzled - it's a 4 minute clip?

My mistake. Quoted wrong post, should have been the post above.

No worries, I only watched that one, which was pretty anodyne tbh.

[The utility cyclist]

For the mods and cycling uk:

You're in breach of govt advice allowing this material to be promoted on your site.

Screenshot_20200429-101131_Facebook.jpg

What information is false about the virus, my link was to laws that were not specific to the virus but public health as a whole.
And so not illegal, just advice, and the advice by government and the information and data by government is in fact misleading and lies in any case, proven many times over the number of deaths is false by using a completely different way to record a death, even the register on the ONS website tells us this by definition of how they've reworded the terms of inclusion and by the governments own adviser who stated that the deaths are not in fact FROM C.19 in the majority of cases.
discussion about manipulation of deaths that has caused lockdown and the fear should be openly discussed, as should any government lies/spin.

[The utility cyclist]

So I've now been threatened to be banned from the site if I post any more C.19 links without actually been told what misinformation I have posted nor indeed seen any such threats to others posting misinformation regarding anything else including misinformation by the government and their advisors.

The last link was to John Ioannidis the co-director of meta research at Stanford university and his views from the testing they've done and the one before that was regards to laws that I took on face value with regards to actions that governments could do under such laws, I did not produce any misleading information regarding Covid 19, the laws in that video link talked about public health as a whole, I did not mention Covid 19 and Graham the moderator has not told me what false information I have published regarding covid 19.

I hope the moderators uphold this threat to others who publish misinformation

[Oldjohnw]

I wonder if, indeed, the government's mortality figures are correct. I have an awful feeling that when they properly amalgamate community, care home and hospital figures it will be twice as many. Not at all like flu.

[Vorpal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3nptwY50I

Dr. Ioannidis is a scientist. He's not a medical doctor or edipemiologist. He is a scientist who studies how scientists use data.

On the 17th of March, he published an *opinion* piece that basically concluded that US scientists were making decisions about COVID-19 based on poor data https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-f ... able-data/

So, the person he talked to in the video linked above keeps saying 'your study' and variations on 'this means we should open up' and he replies with things like 'if we have good data...' and 'it needs to be gradual' and suggesting that we still need to protect the vulnerable. He wants to make sure that we are making decisions based upon science, and not politics. That all makes perfect sense.

The interviewer is the only one who suggests that it is like seasonal flu.

p.s. (edit) I have now found the study referred to & will discuss it more later.