Covid conspiracies / rants/ BS

[Cousin Jack]

Lots of interesting stuff, but the actual change in the virus has not been mentioned. On day 1 it was a new virus, treatment unknown, and seemingly very nasty. It was also of a type that was known to mutate readily, so the obvious danger was it could become more deadly.
We now have a much better idea of how to treat it, no cure yet, but some drugs help. The virus has mutated, fortunately it seems to be less serious although more transmissable. It could easily have been the other way around.
Perhaps Covid us no longer the threat it was, but on day 1 it was a clear and present danger. Now politicians are in a cleft stick, it doesn't seem to be as bad as it could be, but it could still turn to rat shit if we are unlucky. If they guess wrong they will be pilloried for it.

[DefTrap]

If they guess wrong they will be pilloried for it.

No guesswork required, you just look at the Stats.

This is the big problem innit? This is costing a fortune but how much more will it cost both financially, in lives and in political-self-interest by even getting it slightly wrong. Hence the caution, following the science, allowing genuine experts to provide the forecasts and shitting your pants at some of the outcomes.

[Cousin Jack]

No guesswork required, you just look at the Stats.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
And correlation is NOT causation.

I used to have a book entitled "How to lie with statistics"

[Count Steer]

No guesswork required, you just look at the Stats.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
And correlation is NOT causation.

I used to have a book entitled "How to lie with statistics"

Reichmann's 'Use and Abuse of Statistics' is still worth a read.

The main problem is they're in common use and widely misunderstood. With a few notable exceptions, the media are pretty awful and, it has to be said, there's some bloody awful science out there based on a half-baked understanding of stats...which the media leap on without any serious examination. The number of 'girls with big feet are cleverer' type of deductions that make it onto news programmes is astonishing. The sort of thing where they infer something about a subset of the population without considering what that is also a subset of. Girls with big feet do tend to be 'cleverer' - if you don't analyse a set at a standard age.

The number of times I've wanted to drop the radio down the bog when they report that such and such population, say geographically located, tend to have x, y or z and infer something without considering that said population is also poorer, has higher unemployment etc etc is depressing.

Stats don't lie. They're abused either knowingly or through ignorance.

I like stats.

[Horse]

Stats don't lie. They're abused either knowingly or through ignorance.

Many years ago, OFSTED removed the middle of their five possible ratings for schools.

During one marvellous interview, their spokesperson claimed that "60% of schools are now below average".

[Mussels]

Stats don't lie. They're abused either knowingly or through ignorance.

Many years ago, OFSTED removed the middle of their five possible ratings for schools.

During one marvellous interview, their spokesperson claimed that "60% of schools are now below average".

That line could be true but as with most stats ambiguity makes it meaningless.

[Count Steer]

Stats don't lie. They're abused either knowingly or through ignorance.

Many years ago, OFSTED removed the middle of their five possible ratings for schools.

During one marvellous interview, their spokesperson claimed that "60% of schools are now below average".

That line could be true but as with most stats ambiguity makes it meaningless.

It's meaningless without saying which average. I suspect the spokesperson wouldn't know a mode or median if it bit them though.

[Horse]

Many years ago, OFSTED removed the middle of their five possible ratings for schools.

During one marvellous interview, their spokesperson claimed that "60% of schools are now below average".

That line could be true but as with most stats ambiguity makes it meaningless.

It's meaningless without saying which average. I suspect the spokesperson wouldn't know a mode or median if it bit them though.

Oh don't be mean!

Anyway, the context and explanation directly linked removal of the mid-rating.

[Count Steer]

That line could be true but as with most stats ambiguity makes it meaningless.

It's meaningless without saying which average. I suspect the spokesperson wouldn't know a mode or median if it bit them though.

Oh don't be mean!

Anyway, the context and explanation directly linked removal of the mid-rating.

Oh I got that Hoss. I was just being mean to the OFSTED spokesperson. I assumed they meant that more than 60% were now in the bottom 2 categories after eliminating the middle one. These OFSTED types should go back to school. Hmmm. Knowing the chaos they cause, perhaps not.

[Horse]

I meant 'mddian / mode / mean'

[Horse]

These OFSTED types should go back to school. Hmmm. Knowing the chaos they cause, perhaps not.

For teachers: practice safe sex, have OFSTED instead

[irie]

Lots of interesting stuff, but the actual change in the virus has not been mentioned. On day 1 it was a new virus, treatment unknown, and seemingly very nasty. It was also of a type that was known to mutate readily, so the obvious danger was it could become more deadly.
We now have a much better idea of how to treat it, no cure yet, but some drugs help. The virus has mutated, fortunately it seems to be less serious although more transmissable. It could easily have been the other way around.
Perhaps Covid us no longer the threat it was, but on day 1 it was a clear and present danger. Now politicians are in a cleft stick, it doesn't seem to be as bad as it could be, but it could still turn to rat shit if we are unlucky. If they guess wrong they will be pilloried for it.

In other words, "Better safe than sorry".

[Count Steer]

Regarding Covid death stats. The R4 programme 'More or Less' is on now and is addressing the current interpretation of the figures 'in some corners of the Internet' and also on the second or third tier media (GB news for example) ie pre-existing condition deaths 'don't count'.

Their estimate is that 90% of the recorded deaths citing a pre-existing condition were caused by Covid ie they would not have died at that time because of their condition. Examples include hypertension - which people live with/manage for years - but the highest pre-existing condition is dementia, which, given the mechanism by which vascular dementia causes physical deterioration, Covid really would be the final straw.

The importance of the excess deaths figures is emphasised.

[Horse]

The most recent (19/01/2022) 'No more surgeons' blog includes:

Probably about a quarter of the patients on the five COVID wards have been admitted with other medical problems and their positive COVID test will be an incidental finding. In others, especially the unvaccinated, infection can still result in respiratory failure but the pneumonitis caused by Omicron is appreciably less severe than before. A third group is made up of patients in whom COVID has triggered other medical problems or caused a stable medical condition, such as kidney disease or heart failure, to deteriorate.

[Count Steer]

Here's a good 'stat' the Mrs has spotted. Covid vaccinations kill people. You are currently statistically more likely to die if you've been vaccinated. Particularly double jabbed and boosted.

(Assuming, of course, you neglect to factor in that the old and vulnerable were vaccinated first and refuseniks tend to be younger on average and frequently say they are in robust health. Next week on GB 'News' - killer vaccine ).

[Cousin Jack]

We've had the 'killer jab' bit already. A very very few people react very badly to the jab, far fewer than die from the virus, but hey ho- it's a "killer jab".

[DefTrap]

We've had the 'killer jab' bit already. A very very few people react very badly to the jab, far fewer than die from the virus, but hey ho- it's a "killer jab".

Where does "killer jab" come from anyway? Is it just that folk are saying that "if you die within X days of getting COVID then you died from COVID" that it follows that "if you die within X days of getting the COVID vaccine then you died from the COVID vaccine" ?

There must be some link. We all know that there is a tiny small % chance of fatality (I read 0.0022% I think) from pretty much any vaccine. And if you start pumping 100s of millions of doses into people then pretty soon that tiny small % chance turns into fairly big numbers of deaths. Vaccines are always a benefit vs cost issue though.