Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[Jdsk]

But the evidence of one person's niece and another's wife is not exactly statistically significant, although real.

Exactly.

Sometime all we have is anecdote and personal experience. And even when we have higher levels of evidence that can still be useful to illustrate and to stimulate discussion and engagement.

But when we have higher levels of evidence it can be very damaging to effective policy to persist with anecdotes... they can't be aggregated, as above, and everyone has their own!

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Saying a third of people are seriously concerned doesn't tell us much about the other two thirds without knowing their responses to what is in any case a subjective question.

Yes.

Responses to that sort of question are very sensitive to exact wording and to factors such as what was asked before.

But all that's needed is a link to the news item, and, preferably, the actual report.

...

BTW that concern is very expensive in healthcare resources. I was talking yesterday to a group of experienced GPs who have stepped up to contribute to the management of the outbreak in various novel ways. Consultations are typically taking about 20 min... standard GP appointments were typically about 10 min.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

.... But why did the BBC not say 66% are not concerned or seriously worried? Because our news reporting is based around the worst and the gloomiest. It sells better.

All I'm saying is that from the information as you originally quoted it, I don't know what the rest thought or rather answered, which may not be the same thing.

eg:-

Was the poll yes/no or was there a range of options, and was the 30% you have quoted the most extreme? Was there eg "scared witless"?

Then how many Don't knows? If there are numerous Don't knows, they may be "Don't care" or "Get lost, I'm not telling you."

Beyond that, it's not easy to measure strength of feeling: ie given the choice between concerned and unconcerned, somebody will plump for one or the other.

Anyway, I fancy your main point may be that you don't like the BBC, which isn't selling anything.

[Ben@Forest]

Anyway, I fancy your main point may be that you don't like the BBC, which isn't selling anything.

One definite incontrovertible statistic can be concluded there. You are 100% wrong.

[Jdsk]

Oh - I forgot about that nice Doctor fellow - don't go mixing him up with god, mind...

This fascinates me. IIRC on every discussion on every forum where I've seen John Campbell mentioned he is described as "Doctor". Why is this?

Thanks

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

Self-described... the curse - or blessing - of the internet age, when anyone can publish anything they like. To answer the Q., this fellow uses the title as a consequence of his studying for and being awarded a 'D. Phil' (no mere doctor of medicine, then ). However, we only have his word for that, unless we wish to persue a separate line of enquiry. Like I said, modern knowledge is like a zoom lens - the closer you get, the less you see.

Who he, we wonder...

I recall how we used to plod wearily to and fro' the turnip field, back in the old days and spend the day digging up the turnips, then stagger back to our hovels, with barely enough energy left to eat the bloody things, before falling, exhausted,to sleep only to wake up at day-break to do the whole sodding thing again... which, I wonder, is better - not much knowledge at all, or knowing everything about anything??
However, setting aside who he is, I find the calm and open-minded way in which he presents his material informative and measured. Do we think I've been hood-winked - and if so, why?

[Jdsk]

My question was why other people always refer to his title... ? Is it simply because he uses it?

Jonathan

PS: That's a PhD, not a DPhil.

[Ben@Forest]

Self-described... the curse - or blessing - of the internet age, when anyone can publish anything they like. To answer the Q., this fellow uses the title as a consequence of his studying for and being awarded a 'D. Phil' (no mere doctor of medicine, then .

Is he self-described? If he has a doctorate in any subject he's allowed to use it. The fact it's not a medical qualification makes no difference (and it certainly should not be implied than their knowledge in their field is somehow lesser than that of a medical doctor in theirs).

I've worked with a few doctors over the years. Their PhDs have all been in some natural or environmental science field. Most don't describe themselves as 'doctor' but a very few do. However if they worked at an academic institution they all would.

[simonineaston]

Is he self-described?

Don't attribute more meaning to that phrase than I meant... the observation was made with respect to the content of the screenshot, where the text shown has been written (presumably) by the individual concerned. The phrase was not meant to imply that he had made up a qualification. However, my over-all point is that any TD&H can - and apparently do! - self-publish, claiming or implying that they have all sorts of reasonable justification to direct their opinions towards an unsuspecting public. This means it is all the more difficult to trust any reasonable source, John Campbell appearing to be one such example...
Time and effort is wasted, double-checking the bona fides of an indvidual like John Campbell (assuming one can be bothered, that is) before it is safe to take his output at face-value. Is he, we wonder, just one of the thousands of "instant experts" or barrack-room philosophers that might well include the Mad, the Bad & the Sad, who set up shop to peddle their nonsense, or is he a decent fellow, with knowledge & experience that he sees fit to spend time, effort and possibly cost, to share freely with anyone who wishes to invest time in watching his output? How do we tell the difference between these two types of people? Does he have his own agenda, or is he simply a nice guy? (We recall, wearily, that there is no such thing as a free lunch...) Who makes sure he is who he says he is? What happens if we follow his (or other less reputable YouTubers') advice and suffer a negative consequence?
That's my point!

[Ben@Forest]

Time and effort is wasted, double-checking the bona fides of an indvidual like John Campbell (assuming one can be bothered, that is) before it is safe to take his output at face-value. Is he, we wonder, just one of the thousands of "instant experts" or barrack-room philosophers that might well include the Mad, the Bad & the Sad, who set up shop to peddle their nonsense, or is he a decent fellow, with knowledge & experience that he sees fit to spend time, effort and possibly cost, to share freely with anyone who wishes to invest time in watching his output? How do we tell the difference between these two types of people? Does he have his own agenda, or is he simply a nice guy? (We recall, wearily, that there is no such thing as a free lunch...) Who makes sure he is who he says he is? What happens if we follow his (or other less reputable YouTubers') advice and suffer a negative consequence?
That's my point!

You've got a point. The famous Dr Gillian McKeith was exposed as calling herself 'doctor' after a correspondence course with a non-accredited US college. But it wasn't so much whether she was medical doctor or not (she could have had a doctorate in diet) as the fact it wasn't an accredited college and not a rigorous enough qualification.

It seems though this guy has at least some of the right background. Whether he's right or not, who knows? But at least half of all epidemiologists are going to have been proved wrong or partly wrong by the end of this thing.

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/1851 ... ike-fears/

[Jdsk]

But at least half of all epidemiologists are going to have been proved wrong or partly wrong by the end of this thing.

Nope, there's a big consensus among epidemiologists. The idea that anything in this is anywhere near equally balanced is promoted by false balance reporting in the mass media, by contrarian comment in social media, and by people who are politically motivated.

Jonathan

[Ben@Forest]

But at least half of all epidemiologists are going to have been proved wrong or partly wrong by the end of this thing.

Nope, there's a big consensus among epidemiologists. The idea that anything in this is anywhere near equally balanced is promoted by false balance reporting in the mass media, by contrarian comment in social media, and by people who are politically motivated.

I'm sure you can back that up with a link from a source that l find appropriate?

[Jdsk]

That would be the body of knowledge known as the scientific literature:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But that might take some time, so how about the Royal Society's collection:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/topic/special-collections/novel-coronavirus-outbreak

Or the Faculty of Public Health's:
https://www.fph.org.uk/fph-and-covid-19/

Or the Royal Statistical Society's:
https://rss.org.uk/search/?searchtext=covid

Or the Academy of Medical Sciences':
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/policy/uk-policy/coronavirus

I'm talking about the disease and its epidemiology here, not about policy nor economics. The consensus is overwhelming.

Jonathan

PS: Cue conspiracy theories and accusations of bias.

[Jdsk]

"Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices"
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/navigating-covid-19-through-the-volume-of-competing-voices

Seemed topical.

Jonathan

[mjal]

... and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?

That's a secret response to an FoI request? I've never seen of those before. You've clearly got a copy. Please could you post it in full.

Thanks

Jonathan

for you Jonathan
Why don't you look it up for yourself, it's already widely available online. I've already attached a photo on here previously in the other thread of the admittance of CDC stating no isolation.

You did post a "photo on here previously in the other thread" in the apparent belief that it represented an admission by the CDC that the virus causing Covid-19 had not been isolated.

I replied on 22 October that "the CDC document you have posted is a reference to the lack of virus isolates for test purposes."

This does NOT mean that the virus has not been isolated. I also supplied a reference to a paper, dated 24 February, describing isolation of the virus in Korea :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/

As far as I can see, you did not reply to my post at the time nor since.

I would be grateful if you would take up my point regarding your interpretation of the CDC photograph and your comments on the paper from the Korean scientists.