On 21 Dec 2020 at 11:11am Hamlyn Fourteen wrote:
I have notice that people are not taking the local tier 2 regulations seriously. Over the past week I've witnessed groups of people (who look like office parties) meeting and going into restaurants. I know several people who are having people in their homes, one even had over 6 people from different households including one who had arrived from abroad a few days earlier.
Whatever your personal views are regarding the pandemic, we do know that it kills, and being cooped up in small places is the best way to spread the virus.
On 21 Dec 2020 at 11:58am Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm afraid that horse has bolted, and on its way to Barny Castle. Dire leadership from a bunch of hypocrites has surely contributed to the apathy towards this pandemic. At great cost.
On 21 Dec 2020 at 1:56pm Nevillman wrote:
You are right green. Most people realise the government lost the moral authority to tell us what to do over this with the Cummings affair. People also see that the average age of death is over 82 and decide to risk it for the sake of having a more normal life. You may disagree with them and think they are being irresponsible but they disagree with you. If you are at risk, keep out of their way.
On 21 Dec 2020 at 4:07pm Tom Pain wrote:
After seeing an Austrian parliamentarian test Coca Cola positive for covid, I can see what the fuss is all about. This disease is unstoppable. It has mutated to infect soft drinks, could wine or beer be next? I suggest a sober as well as an isolated Christmas is essential for those who wish to live to see the new year. Who is or are the mysterious hamlyn 14? I've got a good idea but suggestions are welcome and a mince pie is offered to the winning contestant.
On 21 Dec 2020 at 6:35pm Hamlyn Fourteen wrote:
Is that all we're worth, just one mince - Surely fourteen mince pies would be fairer!
On 21 Dec 2020 at 9:19pm Tom Pain wrote:
Mincing is not one of my talents but I'll up the anti to a Christmas pudding.
On 22 Dec 2020 at 3:24pm Biggles wrote:
And now the infection rate for Lewes is up 350% on last week. Well done to you all. Merry Xmas.
On 22 Dec 2020 at 4:48pm IDM wrote:
Hamlyn, another example is groups of children going home from school, who will often charge into a customer limited shop altogether. I suppose they're alright outside though, having been cooped up together anyway.
On 22 Dec 2020 at 9:14pm Local99 wrote:
Lots of people in Lewes are far too clever to get Covid. They are certain of it.
On 22 Dec 2020 at 9:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
350%? How many positive PCR tests is that? How many false positives? How many people with symptoms? How many hospitalisations? If there were 2 positives last week and seven this week it would be 350%. Another mysterious contributer ramps up the fear.. We'll have to change all those posters from Keep Calm to Keep Hysterical and Carry on Screaming. Has anyone else noted that viruses ALWAYS mutate, so why shouldn't this one? Also respiratory diseases ALWAYS peak this time of year, it's nothing new. What is new is people queueing outside shops in the cold and rain.......very healthy?
On 23 Dec 2020 at 12:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
And still, he continues to double-down and underplay the virus. The excess deaths recorded in virtually every country around the world, is to him just attributed to normal seasonal flu's (nothing to see here), and perhaps exacerbated by curtailing peoples movements albeit sometimes, and not always very well.
Meanwhile, in America, they are losing more people to COVID19 everyday than any other illness or cause of death, and more deaths daily than disasters such as the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 9/11. In barely a year, they have lost more people to COVID than they lost servicemen in the entirety of World War 2.
But its all an elaborate hoax, don't you know? Icke told me, and Bill Gates and the banks of the Rothschilds and Soros Dynasties planned it all, as it seems like a nice way to get rich, as they're pretty destitute right now with the status quo.
On 23 Dec 2020 at 1:00pm Biggles wrote:
OMG Send the men in white coats to collect me. For the first time in I don't recall how many years I actually agree with every word greensleeves has just said. Please don't reply and spoil it,quit while your ahead old chap. Merry xmas
On 23 Dec 2020 at 7:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
I think the white coated will be coming for me,I see thousands of dreamer clones skipping down the high street and an endless loop of green coats repeating themselves ad infinitum. It's too, too frightful.
On 28 Dec 2020 at 5:53pm I Say Ding Dong wrote:
Discuss the figures the figures as much as you like you are wasting your breath or more accurately key depressions. These figures were first issued way back in early Feb long before anyone really knew what we were up against and they have been accepted ever since.
Lets look at the current figures, yes they show the virus running rampant compared to earlier in the year. But what data is missing? Firstly sample size. Are we comparing like with like. Yes I know it's being shown as per 100k population but what if the sample is too small to be mathematically sound. Based on the weekly sample what is the confidence level. Indeed is it really a sample or is it the result of all tests for which results have been returned. Based on this last point do some periods have a time lag whilst others do not, if so we are again not comparing like for like.
Who is being included in the sample. To be mathematically meaningful a standard number of people should be tested at random each week from exactly the same area. So say 100 people at random in Lewes, Newhaven, Peacehaven and Seaford. Add to this a smaller sample, again at random from the larger villages Ringmer and Newick. A smaller sample from smaller villages and ditto hamlets/remote farms. Only then are we starting to get a viable sample.
Lets take a look at and destroy the current sample. Based on it being the results of all tests the figures will be skewed as those that work on the land or remotely from home and contact almost nobody (food delivery received etc.) will be less susceptible to infection than those that work in a factory or shop. Lets now consider who will be having tests, on the whole it is people who feel unwell and have symptoms. So Fred on the shop floor tests positive and all his co workers get tested. The chance of higher infection figures is naturally greater. Ditto any work environment that has more than a couple of people present.
If having considered the above you still believe the figures then you need to consider your understanding of statistics and the commonality of population (Sample not people). Obviously Covid is real and a clear and present danger, an equal danger is the willynilly publication of non standard and fluctuating results based on very flawed samples.
Stay safe stay indoors, minimise contact, keep active and keep your minds alert. Use soap and water like we did years ago, (that is properly) if you feel uncomfortable with the behavior of someone close to you, move away. It really isn't rocket science.
On 28 Dec 2020 at 6:12pm Tom Pain wrote:
Nice one dreamer, the art of obfuscation has never sunk to a more confusing opacity. Ding dong. I see your spot of R and R has recharged your batteries.
On 28 Dec 2020 at 8:14pm Nevillman wrote:
I say, I can't work out whether you are saying that the current figures are actually wrong or potentially wrong if these are the statistical measures used.
How inaccurate are the figures?
On 29 Dec 2020 at 6:11pm I Say Ding Dong wrote:
It's impossible to say how wrong the figures are, however due to the means of compilation and the non statistical nature of the approach they are wrong. It's back to the piece of string question of yore. Ultimately my final paragraph sums it up. Just keep well away and isolate. Think of it this way if you have £10 and get locked in a box for three days with just food and water you won't be able to use the £10. Now reset and don't stay in the box. The potential to reduce the 10 through distribution is now huge. That £10 is the virus. It's your call what you do, but don't base the decision purely on the figures.
On 29 Dec 2020 at 6:51pm Tom Pain wrote:
It all depends on what else you've got in the box with you, ten pounds won't get you much these days. If you've got a television in there with you and it's telling you that ten pounds is a fortune you'll feel like keeping it to yourself. When you find out it'll only buy you a couple of beers you'll be well cheesed off. A bit like finding out that the virus that is dangerous for a small percentage of over eighties is about as dangerous as crossing the road to you. It's happened every year of your life and you never noticed it but now you're terrified of catching it or spreading it. Having invested so much time and emotion on a counterfeit ten pound note how are you going to feel? Would you even admit it to yourself? The Tories are betting that you won't, they want serfs.
On 29 Dec 2020 at 6:54pm I Say Ding Dong wrote:
Dear Tom Paine, it comes as little surprise that you display all the signs and understanding normally associated with those commonly referred to as being a complete cock. It's of little wonder you have been cited as being the reason many don't use this site as much as they would if it didn't have you around. Run along.
On 30 Dec 2020 at 11:47pm IDM wrote:
I Say Ding Dong, it isn't a sample in the normal sense of the word (to be extrapolated to a whole population (in the statistical sense, not UK population)). It is an attempt to actually count the data concerned (like daily deaths). It does not need to be extrapolated to the whole (UK) population, introducing sample error and confidence intervals; it is already a count for the whole UK population. But how accurate the count is ...
[more to follow]
On 30 Dec 2020 at 11:54pm IDM wrote:
Economic/Health balance - I'd rather be unemployed than dead.
Schools/Health balance - I'd rather have an under-educated child than a dead one.
On 31 Dec 2020 at 8:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
People may not be posting to avoid obscene insults from fatuous ill mannered louts like you. Then again it might be total boredom from finding the same opinions tediously repeated by one unbearably concieted person under a plethora of different names.
On 31 Dec 2020 at 11:56pm IDM wrote:
Plethora of different names TP? If you can point me towards mine, I'd be grateful for identifying my dissociative identity disorder.
On Fri 1 Jan at 12:59pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Happy new year, weirdos.
On Fri 1 Jan at 8:56pm Tom Pain wrote:
How would you like it extrapolated DIM, bearing in mind the confidence interval? It's not easy to identify an entity if his identity is dissociated from his identity through being dissociated and to then refer that to another dissociated identity which is different but at the same time the same, in fact it's too difficult
And a happy new year to green ordinary.
On Fri 1 Jan at 11:27pm IDM wrote:
ISDD, 28 Dec17-53. An attempt at an actual count for the whole UK is divided by the population to get a figure per 100,000 or 1,000,000. There is no sampling and therefore no confidence interval. Having said that, I agree that the way that the counts are done has all sorts of problems. Quoted cases are affected by testing numbers, false negatives and positives, unidentified cases with no symptoms, self-isolation with minimal symptoms and many other things. The classic statistical approch here would be to take a decent-sized sample (10,000?) and then extrapolate the results across the UK. But, this would be extremely difficult administratively, with perhaps one sample item in the Scillies to another one in the Shetlands. The standard way to get round this is to take a sample of groupings of the ideal sample (in this case perhaps100 boroughs) and then sample 100 within each. Analysis of such a two-tier system for qualitative data (is the person alive or dead?) is not terribly difficult, producing a mean result with a confidence interval. In fact I wrote the PRIAM program which does just that, presenting it at an international conference in Sweden.
You will see that I agree with most of your first three paragraphs. I also agree with the time lag point. Changes in deaths need to be compared with changes in cases perhaps a fortnight earlier. As I agreed with Dreamer many moons ago, with our current data the excess deaths approach is our best attempt for deaths. But even this depends on getting the expected deaths right and assuming that Covid-19 is the only cause of excess deaths at the moment.
Having said all this (that an attempt to get proper counts with the current approach is doomed), I do believe that the distorting factors will change fairly slowly over time. A publicised figure of 1,000 deaths this Thursday and a publicised figure of 500 last Thursday might be of figures which were completely inaccurate; but I would still be convinced that things were getting worse!
On Fri 1 Jan at 11:56pm Tom Pain wrote:
Things are getting worse,oh no it's a plague, even worse it's the end of life on earth,the asteroids are setting fire to my hair, the lizards have eaten Greensleeves,the street outside is......oh the same as ever, nobody's died, the ambulances are grazing contentedly on tarmac and you're a big drama queen in the greatest soap opera ever.
On Sat 2 Jan at 2:07pm IDM wrote:
Sorry ISDD, I made a mistake. The two alternatives values for an individual datum are not
1) dead 2) alive,
but 1) dead of Covid-19 2) dead of something else or alive.
The two tier sample would still give a correct figure at the time, but due to different definitions/identification of Covid-19 deaths, comparisons over a long period would be increasingly dodgy. Then we have the 28 day rule, which is completely arbitrary - but at least it has been consistently applied for many months now.
On Sun 3 Jan at 11:10pm IDM wrote:
TP, you are quite right. There is no way alternative identities could be identified on here; I wonder if Webbo allows it.
I would not link it to dissociative identity disorder though! I would prefer "alias".
On Thu 7 Jan at 10:23pm IDM wrote:
I note that Boris is careful to say "will be offered the vaccine" rather than "be vaccinated". He proudly gives the figures for "have been vaccinated"; but, amazingly, not the number who have refused it.