The Politics Thread 2020

[AndyinLiverpool]

Are the right flouncing off in a huff again?

 

[G STAR RAM]

27 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's comforting to know that you've all spat your dummies at my (not entirely serious) portraying of JHB as a hate preacher. I'm prone to exaggeration apparently  @i-Ramwill vouch for that

At least it proves that you can't argue with my actual point.

Literally no one is saying that people are investigating disparity in BAME deaths at the expense of investigating the other disparities.

Yet someone has made you think they have  - and you're kicking off

But I'm the problem. Thanks lads - have a good evening. 1-0 to me

Surely its 1-1 because you took Trump seriously when he was not being entirely serious too?

[maxjam]

25 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's comforting to know that you've all spat your dummies at my (not entirely serious) portraying of JHB as a hate preacher. I'm prone to exaggeration apparently  @i-Ramwill vouch for that

At least it proves that you can't argue with my actual point.

Literally no one is saying that people are investigating disparity in BAME deaths at the expense of investigating the other disparities.

Yet someone has made you think they have  - and you're kicking off

But I'm the problem. Thanks lads - have a good evening. 1-0 to me

Although we were having a debate until your 'not entirely serious' (so some element of truth?) comment that you have since attempted to dial back. 

If its internet points you're after take as many as you want.  All comments like that do, not to mention others you have made (since removed) in the past do is shut down conversation.  So well done you.

[TramRam]

6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Are the right flouncing off in a huff again?

 

9mins 20seconds

 

[cstand]

6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Are the right flouncing off in a huff again?

 

Flouncing off?

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, cstand said:

Flouncing off?

Yes. Like the last time and the time before that. It's overdue to be honest.

[Norman]

1 minute ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Yes. Like the last time and the time before that. It's overdue to be honest.

Think Boycie literally just posted hinting that @GboroRam might be getting sick of us and no other mod is willing to do it.

Probs not the best time to deliberately troll.

[Eddie]

5 hours ago, maxjam said:

Yup and exploiting the 4% difference in number of BAME deaths compared to their percentage of population (using 9 year old data)

Meanwhile a very real 70:30 split goes by largely ignored. 

 

I saw a table a few days ago which broke down the number of deaths as a proportion of each individual ethnic grouping within the UK, and frankly your 4% figure seems more than a little incongruous with what was represented in the table.

After a bit of digging, I haven't located the actual raw data (it may be an ONS table - there are loads and I just haven't the time or the inclination to waste a lot of time in digging, when I know that some on here will just disagree and take issue because of who is actually posting the data) but I did unearth a Sun article based upon similar NHS data, and this expressed the number of deaths per 100,000 within each ethnic grouping as follows:

• Caribbean 70
• Any other black 48
• Total black 43
• Indian 30
• Any other Asian 27
• All Asian 27
• African 27
• Overall 26
• Pakistani 26
• White British 23
• Bangladeshi 20

This seems to indicate that one particular grouping is way out of line with all of the others, and it's not 4% - it's more than double any other grouping. Incidentally, it is the same ethnic grouping which also suffers the greatest incidence of sickle-cell anaemia, but of course correlation is not necessarily cause. There may be cultural reasons, or it may be to do with population density within the individual communities, as I have alluded to in several previous posts.

 

[MaltRam]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 

• Caribbean 70
• Any other black 48
• Total black 43
• African 27

 

 

I've got to admit I may be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle here...but that doesn't work, surely?

Although...fair play for actually digging out some stats.

[Angry Ram]

53 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's comforting to know that you've all spat your dummies at my (not entirely serious) portraying of JHB as a hate preacher. I'm prone to exaggeration apparently  @i-Ramwill vouch for that

At least it proves that you can't argue with my actual point.

Literally no one is saying that people are investigating disparity in BAME deaths at the expense of investigating the other disparities.

Yet someone has made you think they have  - and you're kicking off

But I'm the problem. Thanks lads - have a good evening. 1-0 to me

 

Could not find a decent truck reversing, damage limitation GIF
 

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 

I saw a table a few days ago which broke down the number of deaths as a proportion of each individual ethnic grouping within the UK, and frankly your 4% figure seems more than a little incongruous with what was represented in the table.

After a bit of digging, I haven't located the actual raw data (it may be an ONS table - there are loads and I just haven't the time or the inclination to waste a lot of time in digging, when I know that some on here will just disagree and take issue because of who is actually posting the data) but I did unearth a Sun article based upon similar NHS data, and this expressed the number of deaths per 100,000 within each ethnic grouping as follows:

• Caribbean 70
• Any other black 48
• Total black 43
• Indian 30
• Any other Asian 27
• All Asian 27
• African 27
• Overall 26
• Pakistani 26
• White British 23
• Bangladeshi 20

This seems to indicate that one particular grouping is way out of line with all of the others, and it's not 4% - it's more than double any other grouping. Incidentally, it is the same ethnic grouping which also suffers the greatest incidence of sickle-cell anaemia, but of course correlation is not necessarily cause. There may be cultural reasons, or it may be to do with population density within the individual communities, as I have alluded to in several previous posts.

 

In which case shouldn't the people raising the issue single out Caribbean people, when saying there is a clear discrepancy, rather than saying it is the BAME community?

 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

I've got to admit I may be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle here...but that doesn't work, surely?

Although...fair play for actually digging out some stats.

I was thinking the same!

[Boycie]

51 minutes ago, cstand said:

 The left wing fanatics will just post their diatribe elsewhere, 

Off the forum.

[Archied]

23 minutes ago, Norman said:

Think Boycie literally just posted hinting that @GboroRam might be getting sick of us and no other mod is willing to do it.

Probs not the best time to deliberately troll.

Well I was a bit cheesed off with the moderating this morning but quickly thought it through and figured the best course of action is to not respond and defend yourself against the few usual suspects that think it’s ok to be rude and insulting ,

going forward the report post function will be first port of call as otherwise we will end up without a politics thread that has value for the majority who can play nice?

[Boycie]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Well I was a bit cheesed off with the moderating this morning but quickly thought it through and figured the best course of action is to not respond and defend yourself against the few usual suspects that think it’s ok to be rude and insulting ,

going forward the report post function will be first port of call as otherwise we will end up without a politics thread that has value for the majority who can play nice?

You have an ignore feature that can limit stress. Not completely, but help.

The trouble is, it’s like the “friend” on Facebook you have that you hate but don’t want to remove because you secretly hope they’ll get some kind of “come uppance “ where another poster will really let rip and tell them what everyone thinks about them.

Yes, I have a few on Facebook like that.

[Ghost of Clough]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 

I saw a table a few days ago which broke down the number of deaths as a proportion of each individual ethnic grouping within the UK, and frankly your 4% figure seems more than a little incongruous with what was represented in the table.

After a bit of digging, I haven't located the actual raw data (it may be an ONS table - there are loads and I just haven't the time or the inclination to waste a lot of time in digging, when I know that some on here will just disagree and take issue because of who is actually posting the data) but I did unearth a Sun article based upon similar NHS data, and this expressed the number of deaths per 100,000 within each ethnic grouping as follows:

• Caribbean 70
• Any other black 48
• Total black 43
• Indian 30
• Any other Asian 27
• All Asian 27
• African 27
• Overall 26
• Pakistani 26
• White British 23
• Bangladeshi 20

This seems to indicate that one particular grouping is way out of line with all of the others, and it's not 4% - it's more than double any other grouping. Incidentally, it is the same ethnic grouping which also suffers the greatest incidence of sickle-cell anaemia, but of course correlation is not necessarily cause. There may be cultural reasons, or it may be to do with population density within the individual communities, as I have alluded to in several previous posts.

 

Latest NHS Figures state 17.3% of deaths are non-white. 

The 2011 census would suggest the figure should be closer to 14.0% - a 3.3% difference. I expect current figures to be much higher than 14% given historic trends. It was lower than 9% in the 2001 census.

[Eddie]

8 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

I've got to admit I may be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle here...but that doesn't work, surely?

Although...fair play for actually digging out some stats.

On the contrary, it does work. The raw data, I suspect, has Caribbean, African and 'Any other black' (possibly including Black American) as a separate category - and the 'African' percentage drags the other two down. If the populations were the same size, then the 'Total black' figure would be around 48, not 43. However, if the 'Any other black' population size is smaller than the 'African' population, that will drag the average down.

[Eddie]

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

In which case shouldn't the people raising the issue single out Caribbean people, when saying there is a clear discrepancy, rather than saying it is the BAME community?

 

I agree. There is no 'BAME community' as such - there's no such thing, so the problem is with people who do not understand statistics - or data for that matter. There may be genetic reasons, there may be cultural reasons, it may be as simple as population density, or diet, or general health, drug use, body mass index, or a hundred other reasons. All will need to be looked at in some detail.

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I agree. There is no 'BAME community' as such - there's no such thing, so the problem is with people who do not understand statistics - or data for that matter. There may be genetic reasons, there may be cultural reasons, it may be as simple as population density, or diet, or general health, drug use, body mass index, or a hundred other reasons. All will need to be looked at in some detail.

oooh Hark at you bringing facts and common sense to this thread. 

[maxjam]

23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

In which case shouldn't the people raising the issue single out Caribbean people, when saying there is a clear discrepancy, rather than saying it is the BAME community?

There does indeed seem to be one group that is wildy out of whack with other ethnicities in some later data.

Not got time now to look further but I would like to see how they reached their figures when a few days previous The Guardian were only quoting a 4% difference in BAME deaths.  I also note that every study mentions the 2011 census for BAME population percentage, I highly doubt it is still 15% but thats obviously conjecture until we find out what it actually is next year.