Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[kiloran]

Well I'm still waiting for someone to explain what on earth this disease has to do with rooks, ravens, magpies, jackdaws and crows.

Ooks, avens and cows for sue?

Qué?

Your homework for tonight..... discuss the difference between covid and corvid

--kiloran

[Mike4]

Ooks, avens and cows for sue?

Qué?

Your homework for tonight..... discuss the difference between covid and corvid

--kiloran

Well done, you got my leetle joke!!

[servodude]

This suggests lockdown has been pointless, had little effect, and that we should rapidly exit it.

Do you remember when your line was:
- if this was real the ONS data would show excess deaths? Where are the excess deaths? Look it hasn't changed - who needs a lockdown?

Disingenuous. I never said it wasn't a real virus. At the time there were no excess deaths. The ONS data proves I was correct.

At the same time you guys were claiming exponential deaths and Armageddon. But now backtracking with dodgy definitions...

And I also stated that there was no solid scientific data to say this was a once in a century killer virus. There still is none. I also stated that it may well be only slightly worse than a bad flu season. At present, looking at mortality rates, the curve appears no worse than a bad flu season.

So at the time of the lockdown decision there was no solid scientific data to support lockdown, apart from dodgy computer models. And there still is none. If you have any solid scientific data that shows lockdown has made a discernible difference, present it. Many eminent scientists agree that there is none.

Lockdown has been pointless. It's happened because fear ruled the day, whilst rational thought and reasonable interpretation of the evidence were abandoned. Sweden is the control subject, no Armageddon there. But you, like many, will dismiss that.

Most are now suffering from a severe strain of sunk-cost fallacy...

Hey EF, Brazil called... they'd like a word!

Meanwhile, it's begging the question that I was referring to; it's good to try and avoid it if you can, doing it blatantly can undermine an argument

You're free to interpret the data available in whatever way you choose - but don't be surprised if others disagree

You quite clearly used the absence of any abnormality in the ONS figures as evidence to state the position that there was nothing to see, no need for a lock down etc and, like a Heaven's Gate member, when it did appear to contradict you it only strengthened your faith in your position
So your use of the word disingenuous is disingenuous

Good luck
- sd

[ElectronicFur]

Meanwhile, it's begging the question that I was referring to; it's good to try and avoid it if you can, doing it blatantly can undermine an argument

You're free to interpret the data available in whatever way you choose - but don't be surprised if others disagree

You quite clearly used the absence of any abnormality in the ONS figures as evidence to state the position that there was nothing to see, no need for a lock down etc and, like a Heaven's Gate member, when it did appear to contradict you it only strengthened your faith in your position
So your use of the word disingenuous is disingenuous

There was no question in your post that I replied to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The actual data confirms exactly what I said, that there was no solid scientific data to support lockdown, or to say this was a once in a century killer virus.

You were the one claiming otherwise, months have gone by, but you have yet to present any solid scientific data that supports that...

[ElectronicFur]

These short videos by Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt might be useful to some...

Exponential Growth is Terrifying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgPf1SuPNY
Curve Fitting for Understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw2ZTaiN97k
COVID19 Never Grows Exponentially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o

[servodude]

Meanwhile, it's begging the question that I was referring to; it's good to try and avoid it if you can, doing it blatantly can undermine an argument

You're free to interpret the data available in whatever way you choose - but don't be surprised if others disagree

You quite clearly used the absence of any abnormality in the ONS figures as evidence to state the position that there was nothing to see, no need for a lock down etc and, like a Heaven's Gate member, when it did appear to contradict you it only strengthened your faith in your position
So your use of the word disingenuous is disingenuous

There was no question in your post that I replied to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The actual data confirms exactly what I said, that there was no solid scientific data to support lockdown, or to say this was a once in a century killer virus.

You were the one claiming otherwise, months have gone by, but you have yet to present any solid scientific data that supports that...

You're not dragging me down to your level so you can beat me with experience

As I said you're welcome to your interpretation
Good luck
-sd

[XFool]

This suggests lockdown has been pointless, had little effect, and that we should rapidly exit it.

Do you remember when your line was:
- if this was real the ONS data would show excess deaths? Where are the excess deaths? Look it hasn't changed - who needs a lockdown?

Disingenuous. I never said it wasn't a real virus. At the time there were no excess deaths. The ONS data proves I was correct.

Disingenuous. To put it mildly...

You now try to change the goalposts to "I never said it wasn't a real virus".

Your original 'argument' was "There are no excess deaths". Within a week the ONS data blew your 'argument' clean out of the water. But you've never looked back, have you?

At the same time you guys were claiming exponential deaths and Armageddon. But now backtracking with dodgy definitions...

Disingenuous. Who claimed "Armageddon"? What is the definition of "Armageddon" in these circumstances? Guess you'll leave your strawman argument undefined.

We know, and can clearly see, who is backtracking their "dodgy" 'argument'.

And I also stated that there was no solid scientific data to say this was a once in a century killer virus. There still is none. I also stated that it may well be only slightly worse than a bad flu season. At present, looking at mortality rates, the curve appears no worse than a bad flu season.

You have claimed several things, either there is no "solid scientific" evidence for what you claim or - as per your original claim - the evidence blows away your claim.

So at the time of the lockdown decision there was no solid scientific data to support lockdown, apart from dodgy computer models. And there still is none. If you have any solid scientific data that shows lockdown has made a discernible difference, present it. Many eminent scientists agree that there is none.

Many "eminent scientists" (who are epidemiologists), both in the UK and elsewhere, supported the lockdown.

has been pointless. It's happened because fear ruled the day, whilst rational thought and reasonable interpretation of the evidence were abandoned. Sweden is the control subject, no Armageddon there. But you, like many, will dismiss that.

It will be interesting to look at the Swedish experience after this is all over. However, you should note that in their own terms, what their original course was supposed to be about ('Protecting the vulnerable'), they appear to have failed. They and we already know this much.

[GoSeigen]

Meanwhile, it's begging the question that I was referring to; it's good to try and avoid it if you can, doing it blatantly can undermine an argument

You're free to interpret the data available in whatever way you choose - but don't be surprised if others disagree

You quite clearly used the absence of any abnormality in the ONS figures as evidence to state the position that there was nothing to see, no need for a lock down etc and, like a Heaven's Gate member, when it did appear to contradict you it only strengthened your faith in your position
So your use of the word disingenuous is disingenuous

There was no question in your post that I replied to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

LOL! "Begging the question" is the name of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning: that is what sd was referring to!

GS

[ElectronicFur]

You are the ones drawing conclusions without any providing any supporting solid scientific evidence; and suffering from a really severe strain of sunk-cost fallacy...

[swill453]

A railway ticket office worker has died with coronavirus after being spat at by a man who claimed he had Covid-19.

Horrible story (and I haven't even read it!).

But that sentence is so ambiguous it borders on genius. Did the spitter have Covid-19? Unconfirmed. Did the ticket office worker die of Covid-19? Unconfirmed. If both had Covid-19, was it passed on in the spitting incident? Unconfirmed.

Seems I was right to be sceptical.

Following a “full and thorough investigation”, BTP detectives concluded there “is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences” took place and Ms Mujinga’s death was “not a consequence of this incident”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 39086.html

Scott.

[XFool]

A railway ticket office worker has died with coronavirus after being spat at by a man who claimed he had Covid-19.

Horrible story (and I haven't even read it!).

But that sentence is so ambiguous it borders on genius. Did the spitter have Covid-19? Unconfirmed. Did the ticket office worker die of Covid-19? Unconfirmed. If both had Covid-19, was it passed on in the spitting incident? Unconfirmed.

Seems I was right to be sceptical.

Following a “full and thorough investigation”, BTP detectives concluded there “is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences” took place and Ms Mujinga’s death was “not a consequence of this incident”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 39086.html

Indeed. But that Independent article only adds it's own "ambiguity" to the story:

The attack on Ms Mujinga was widely condemned amid a slate of other spitting and coughing assaults on police, transport staff and other key workers.

Was it an "attack"? Did he or did he not spit at her? If he did, regardless of anything else, why was he not charged with assault?

Are we any the wiser?

[swill453]

Indeed. But that Independent article only adds it's own "ambiguity" to the story:

The attack on Ms Mujinga was widely condemned amid a slate of other spitting and coughing assaults on police, transport staff and other key workers.

Was it an "attack"? Did he or did he not spit at her? If he did, regardless of anything else, why was he not charged with assault?

Are we any the wiser?

Well I would have thought spitting on someone would be a criminal offence, whether or not coronavirus was involved. So if BTP say there “is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences” took place then perhaps the spitting attack didn't happen at all.

But I agree, we know a little more about what didn't happen, but not what did happen.

Scott.

[XFool]

Are we any the wiser?

Well I would have thought spitting on someone would be a criminal offence, whether or not coronavirus was involved. So if BTP say there “is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences” took place then perhaps the spitting attack didn't happen at all.

Or it did take place, but the only evidence of the spitting was Ms Mujinga's word and, as she is now dead, she can no longer give evidence in court.

[ElectronicFur]

Indeed. But that Independent article only adds it's own "ambiguity" to the story:

The attack on Ms Mujinga was widely condemned amid a slate of other spitting and coughing assaults on police, transport staff and other key workers.

Was it an "attack"? Did he or did he not spit at her? If he did, regardless of anything else, why was he not charged with assault?

Are we any the wiser?

Well I would have thought spitting on someone would be a criminal offence, whether or not coronavirus was involved. So if BTP say there “is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences” took place then perhaps the spitting attack didn't happen at all.

But I agree, we know a little more about what didn't happen, but not what did happen.

Scott.

Better to go direct to the source:

"Detectives have conducted extensive enquiries to establish the full circumstances of what happened on 21 March. This has involved reviewing CCTV footage of the incident and speaking to key witnesses.

Following a review of all the information, senior detectives have concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences having taken place, and that the tragic death of Belly Mujinga was not a consequence of this incident.

As a result, the matter will not be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service."

"As a result of our enquiries, we can now be confident that this incident did not lead to Belly’s tragic death."

https://media.btp.police.uk/r/17230/upd ... ation_-_lo

[swill453]

Better to go direct to the source:

"Detectives have conducted extensive enquiries to establish the full circumstances of what happened on 21 March. This has involved reviewing CCTV footage of the incident and speaking to key witnesses.

Following a review of all the information, senior detectives have concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences having taken place, and that the tragic death of Belly Mujinga was not a consequence of this incident.

As a result, the matter will not be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service."

"As a result of our enquiries, we can now be confident that this incident did not lead to Belly’s tragic death."

https://media.btp.police.uk/r/17230/upd ... ation_-_lo

Thanks. Not sure it sheds too much more light. So there was an "incident" but no criminal offences took place. What was the incident?

Scott.

[XFool]

Better to go direct to the source:

"Detectives have conducted extensive enquiries to establish the full circumstances of what happened on 21 March. This has involved reviewing CCTV footage of the incident and speaking to key witnesses.

Following a review of all the information, senior detectives have concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate any criminal offences having taken place, and that the tragic death of Belly Mujinga was not a consequence of this incident.

As a result, the matter will not be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service."

"As a result of our enquiries, we can now be confident that this incident did not lead to Belly’s tragic death."

https://media.btp.police.uk/r/17230/upd ... ation_-_lo

Thanks. Not sure it sheds too much more light. So there was an "incident" but no criminal offences took place. What was the incident?

The incident:

On 11 May, it was reported to BTP that a 47-year-old lady, Belly Mujinga, had been spat and coughed at while working in the ticket hall with two colleagues on 21 March.

We don't know who "reported" it, or what exactly they reported, though it does say she had been "spat at". Malicious? Or simply somebody was coughing and spitting? It's a mystery.

[DrFfybes]

On 11 May, it was reported to BTP that a 47-year-old lady, Belly Mujinga, had been spat and coughed at while working in the ticket hall with two colleagues on 21 March.

We don't know who "reported" it, or what exactly they reported, though it does say she had been "spat at". Malicious? Or simply somebody was coughing and spitting? It's a mystery.

I sometimes spit at people, not deliberately, but occasionally some spittle escapes when talking. This tends to increase when animated or shouting, or after I have coughed.

Fortunately it doesn't seem to travel 2m

Paul

[XFool]

Sage minutes reveal how UK advisers reacted to coronavirus crisis

The Guardian

Government releases papers showing how advice changed in run-up to lockdown

[jackdaww]

We don't know who "reported" it, or what exactly they reported, though it does say she had been "spat at". Malicious? Or simply somebody was coughing and spitting? It's a mystery.

I sometimes spit at people, not deliberately, but occasionally some spittle escapes when talking. This tends to increase when animated or shouting, or after I have coughed.

Fortunately it doesn't seem to travel 2m

Paul

===================================

not only do i never spit ---

if i find myself too close to anyone , for whatever reason , when out ---

i HOLD MY BREATH.

so i dont inhale virus , neither do i project virus .

does anyone else do this ?

[swill453]

The incident:

On 11 May, it was reported to BTP that a 47-year-old lady, Belly Mujinga, had been spat and coughed at while working in the ticket hall with two colleagues on 21 March.

We don't know who "reported" it, or what exactly they reported, though it does say she had been "spat at". Malicious? Or simply somebody was coughing and spitting? It's a mystery.

Yes I know that's what was reported, but BTP haven't confirmed that was what took place. Like I said, even if coronavirus wasn't involved, a member of the public spitting at officials would likely be a criminal offence in any case.

I accept that one of those involved is no longer around to give evidence, but BTP seem to have satisfied themselves that an "incident" took place, but haven't said what it was.

Scott.