Coronavirus

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The really crazy thing was to insist on university attendance at this present time when the students could have attended lectures online - which is what they are having to do now in Manchester and Glasgow. This was predicted three weeks ago.

Totally agree Eddie. Get the kids in so they pay the rent (halls need to be filled) even though when they gwt their timetable it is mostly online nd then lock them up. 

 

[Stive Pesley]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

I'm a bit simple here. Could you please  explain what you mean by this statement (which you have used repeatedly over the last couple of days), and provide a citation to back up your statement?

Are you actually suggesting that if 10 people test positive, then statistically, 9 of those results are wrong and that 9 out of 10 were actually negative? If that is the case, then the whole testing process is entirely meaningless.

I was wondering the same thing, as you say - he keeps repeating it as fact, but when he tried to explain it the other day it was far from clear what he meant.

My guess is that he's just doing his usual thing of deciding on his own personal interpretation of something and then repeatedly stating it very confidently in the hope that people think he knows what he's on about.

 

 

[Eddie]

27 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I was wondering the same thing, as you say - he keeps repeating it as fact, but when he tried to explain it the other day it was far from clear what he meant.

My guess is that he's just doing his usual thing of deciding on his own personal interpretation of something and then repeatedly stating it very confidently in the hope that people think he knows what he's on about.

 

 

I've done a bit of research on this in the last hour, and I think it stems from some utter tripe spouted by someone called Julia Hartley-Brewer, who appears to be a bit of a talk radio person. Her logic is as follows:

If the given stats for 'False positives' are 0.8% as stated by Matt Hancock, then 8 out of 1000 tests are going to flag up as positive when in fact they should be negative.

With me so far? Good - nothing contentious there.

She then goes on to say that, if the 1000 tests actually reveal 9 positive tests (0.9%), then given the aforementioned 0.8% error (8 out of 1000), then in fact 8 out of those 9 positive tests are wrong.

There's your 90% that @up the rams!is quoting.

Unfortunately, the wrong end of the statistical stick has been firmly grasped here. It isn't 0.8% of the total tests that are being flagged as positive - the error actually applies to the number of positive tests that should have been flagged as negative.

The real answer is as follows:

If you take 1,000,000 tests and 0.9% test positive, then this would give 9000 positive results and 991000 negative results.

Now, applying the 0.8% error in 'False positives' Hancock was alluding to, those 9000 positives actually include 72 people who were actually negative, but flagged up as positive.

[Gone]

Because you all love a chart........wake up ffs

[tomsdubs]

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Because you all love a chart........wake up ffs

Explain the data you are presenting here and it's validity.

[ariotofmyown]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I've done a bit of research on this in the last hour, and I think it stems from some utter tripe spouted by someone called Julia Hartley-Brewer, who appears to be a bit of a talk radio person. Her logic is as follows:

If the given stats for 'False positives' are 0.8% as stated by Matt Hancock, then 8 out of 1000 tests are going to flag up as positive when in fact they should be negative.

With me so far? Good - nothing contentious there.

She then goes on to say that, if the 1000 tests actually reveal 9 positive tests (0.9%), then given the aforementioned 0.8% error (8 out of 1000), then in fact 8 out of those 9 positive tests are wrong.

There's your 90% that @up the rams!is quoting.

Unfortunately, the wrong end of the statistical stick has been firmly grasped here. It isn't 0.8% of the total tests that are being flagged as positive - the error actually applies to the number of positive tests that should have been flagged as negative.

The real answer is as follows:

If you take 1,000,000 tests and 0.9% test positive, then this would give 9000 positive results and 991000 negative results.

Now, applying the 0.8% error in 'False positives' Hancock was alluding to, those 9000 positives actually include 72 people who were actually negative, but flagged up as positive.

I assumed it was that too, but a link was posted that did make the other case that seemed genuinely. Perhaps that was a fake news thing?

[Ghost of Clough]

18 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Because you all love a chart........wake up ffs

The general trend shows it’s still increasing?

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

Explain the data you are presenting here and it's validity.

The red line is the number of lies the government plan to make. The blue line is the number of lies the government plan to make.

[Albert]

4 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Do you think it’s not “misguided” of people to think other people should  lose their jobs, education, future, social interactions, relationships and so on and so on to protect a minority, who can protect themselves easily enough....maybe that’s a little “misguided” as well. There are two sides to every issue,  Maybe???? 

It's a weird one seeing the UK from the outside. 

The lesson from places like Australia is that the best way to protect those jobs, lives, etc is all the same thing. A hard lockdown, people following social distancing and mask requirements, then keeping things steady afterwards. 

Businesses will fold without the consumer confidence brought by normalcy. In Australia, the states that have achieved that are doing excellently right now, with life being pretty much normal. 

[Eddie]

49 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Because you all love a chart........wake up ffs

Didn't Vallance suggest that the projection could apply "...if nothing was done"?

Hasn't something been done over the last few days? There must have been, surely, because you and your drones have been losing your poo with ever-increasing regularity.

[Eddie]

37 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I assumed it was that too, but a link was posted that did make the other case that seemed genuinely. Perhaps that was a fake news thing?

Don't know. I aim to clarify things - @GboroRam aims to stop me doing so by giving me repeated holidays.

[GboroRam]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

Don't know. I aim to clarify things - @GboroRam aims to stop me doing so by giving me repeated holidays.

Fake news, I only hand out points to the moderates, never to the loony lefties. Or so I read. Don't tell me that's fake news too? 

[Gaspode]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

I've done a bit of research on this in the last hour, and I think it stems from some utter tripe spouted by someone called Julia Hartley-Brewer, who appears to be a bit of a talk radio person. Her logic is as follows:

If the given stats for 'False positives' are 0.8% as stated by Matt Hancock, then 8 out of 1000 tests are going to flag up as positive when in fact they should be negative.

With me so far? Good - nothing contentious there.

She then goes on to say that, if the 1000 tests actually reveal 9 positive tests (0.9%), then given the aforementioned 0.8% error (8 out of 1000), then in fact 8 out of those 9 positive tests are wrong.

There's your 90% that @up the rams!is quoting.

Unfortunately, the wrong end of the statistical stick has been firmly grasped here. It isn't 0.8% of the total tests that are being flagged as positive - the error actually applies to the number of positive tests that should have been flagged as negative.

The real answer is as follows:

If you take 1,000,000 tests and 0.9% test positive, then this would give 9000 positive results and 991000 negative results.

Now, applying the 0.8% error in 'False positives' Hancock was alluding to, those 9000 positives actually include 72 people who were actually negative, but flagged up as positive.

I’m pleased I’m not the only one that recognised that these stats were gibberish - I was going to write a similar point explaining that the figures had been misinterpreted, but some of the most rabid posters on here were so happy using them as a big stick to beat those with opposing views that I simply couldn’t be arsed.... well done @Eddie

[Gone]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

Didn't Vallance suggest that the projection could apply "...if nothing was done"?

Hasn't something been done over the last few days? There must have been, surely, because you and your drones have been losing your poo with ever-increasing regularity.

We shut the pubs at 10pm from Thursday, pretty sure that isn’t having an effect just yet (or ever)

[GboroRam]

Just now, TexasRam said:

We shut the pubs at 10pm from Thursday, pretty sure that isn’t having an effect just yet (or ever)

We've locked down a quarter of the country too. 

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

We've locked down a quarter of the country too. 

Yesterday 

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

Yesterday 

To date, but the regional lockdown started some time ago. 

[Gone]

17 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

To date, but the regional lockdown started some time ago. 

Yes and the supposed “deadly”rise in cases has been during these regional lock downs. @Eddie stated the lack of cases following the same trend as predicted by the scientists was because we’d put in measures, we only put in the new measures at the end of this week, so I don’t see the correlation. I know some of you are desperate to be proven right and the end really is nigh, but it’s just not happening is it? 

[ariotofmyown]

8 hours ago, Albert said:

It's a weird one seeing the UK from the outside. 

The lesson from places like Australia is that the best way to protect those jobs, lives, etc is all the same thing. A hard lockdown, people following social distancing and mask requirements, then keeping things steady afterwards. 

Businesses will fold without the consumer confidence brought by normalcy. In Australia, the states that have achieved that are doing excellently right now, with life being pretty much normal. 

If it's weird from the outside, you should try been here!

We just more "freedom loving" than other countries I guess. That's what those heros were trying to say whilst fighting the police in Trafalgar Square yesterday.

[Norman]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

The really crazy thing was to insist on university attendance at this present time when the students could have attended lectures online - which is what they are having to do now in Manchester and Glasgow. This was predicted three weeks ago.

I assume that is based on saving local economies. Places like Coventry see its population surge by a third due to university attendance. 

Unfortunately we followed the American University system in debt and economics. 

There are countless cities and councils that would be in severe trouble with no university attendance this year.