Coronavirus

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, the answer is no, you don't have a source that this is the case. 

Cool. 

Yeah no slides were amended ?

[jimmyp]

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

They held back when questioned on Cummings incident ,mixed with boris jumping in too , the only one who came out with a bit of integrity was van tam who at a later stage in a veiled way made his feeling s known

Rightly so, they should keep their personnel opinions to themselves. I only want to hear about the science and reasoning and how they think it should be applied and what benefit they think it will have. I think they have been as open as they can given the circumstances. I also think it must be a nightmare job for them, not sure any of them want to be in the limelight.  

Yeah I like Van Tam, think he’s very good. 

Don’t care much for many politicians. 

[Albert]

34 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Again, where did I dismiss their conclusion? I merely quoted what they said in their report. They admitted that the data they have collected can show something overwhelming or something not so significant. They did that in the first few paragraphs. They have chosen to focus on the overwhelming. Fair play. That's their choice. 

That's not what they were saying at all, and what you are trying to represent about their conclusions is at best misguided, and at worst outright dishonest. As discussed, what they were noting is that people can diddle the raw numbers, but from the argument they've presented this is indeed a significant loss of expected life. 

34 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Also, you have made a complete wrong assumption. I don't listen to people closest just to support my position. I actually don't have a particular position. I just choose to listen to the people who work in the NHS that I know rather than what is said in the media. I find them more trustworthy than someone trying to sell newspapers or get clicks.

Why do you feel one snapshot of the NHS is a better representation than people using aggregations of data from around the UK and elsewhere? How do you reconcile that with the known range of opinions of those working in the NHS? 

34 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yeah no slides were amended ?

You've not actually said what you think was amended/changed or otherwise. You don't really have a point, and from here I'll just assume you're peddling made up nonsense until you can actually come up with specifics and ideally a source. 

36 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

It wasn’t meant to challenge anything.

 I was merely adding detail and the fact is that self funders, by definition those of higher wealth, last longer than those whose care is funded by the state.

Fair enough, it's good to see you agree with my original point then. 

[jimmyp]

38 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Again, where did I dismiss their conclusion? I merely quoted what they said in their report. They admitted that the data they have collected can show something overwhelming or something not so significant. They did that in the first few paragraphs. They have chosen to focus on the overwhelming. Fair play. That's their choice. 

Also, you have made a complete wrong assumption. I don't listen to people closest just to support my position. I actually don't have a particular position. I just choose to listen to the people who work in the NHS that I know rather than what is said in the media. I find them more trustworthy than someone trying to sell newspapers or get clicks.

What are those you know in the nhs thinking of the current situation?

[Cardinal]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

That's not what they were saying at all, and what you are trying to represent about their conclusions is at best misguided, and at worst outright dishonest. As discussed, what they were noting is that people can diddle the raw numbers, but from the argument they've presented this is indeed a significant loss of expected life. 

Wow. Pretty impressive accusation there. 

This is the part of the paper I am referencing. 

In this paper, we provide several different ways to think about the mortality of the epidemic. It is possible to portray the death toll in a way that feels overwhelmingly large, but it is also possible to describe it in a way that makes the epidemic mortality seem almost negligible. Our view is that COVID-19 should be seen as an extremely large mortality threat. 

What did I say that is any different to this? At no point have I dismissed their conclusion or tried to represent anything different and don't appreciate being accused of being dishonest. 

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

Why do you feel one snapshot of the NHS is a better representation than people using aggregations of data from around the UK and elsewhere? How do you reconcile that with the known range of opinions of those working in the NHS? 

I didn't say this either. All I am saying is I tend to listen more to those working in the middle of it than stuff I see in the media or Internet. My personal choice. 

[Cardinal]

14 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

What are those you know in the nhs thinking of the current situation?

That's its not particularly good. Busy time but as they say it's what they are trained for. Still able to do some non covid related work so it's not quite the apocalypse that some would have you believe. Mainly frustrated that they are often short staffed due to colleagues having to self isolate. 

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Wow. Pretty impressive accusation there. 

This is the part of the paper I am referencing. 

In this paper, we provide several different ways to think about the mortality of the epidemic. It is possible to portray the death toll in a way that feels overwhelmingly large, but it is also possible to describe it in a way that makes the epidemic mortality seem almost negligible. Our view is that COVID-19 should be seen as an extremely large mortality threat. 

Given you're still going with this interpretation, I'm going to assume that it's being misguided, rather than trying to misrepresent what they've said. Given the quote above, it's very clear what they're trying to say, ie that there exist people trying to use the same raw numbers to suggest that the mortality from the pandemic is negligible, or massive, but by the methods they've used, it is clear that the mortality threat is large. 

8 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

What did I say that is any different to this? At no point have I dismissed their conclusion or tried to represent anything different and don't appreciate being accused of being dishonest. 

Try to avoiding being dishonest then if such accusations bother you. 

As noted though, I suspect it's more an issue of you not comprehending the quote properly, ie more being misguided than trying to deceive. 

As to when you've tried to say different to this... well, you've said it repeatedly. You're arguing that the quote means that they've focused on the overwhelming, as opposed to that being the findings from their research. ie you've dismissed their findings as what is essentially opinion as you've misread what they've written. 

8 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

I didn't say this either. All I am saying is I tend to listen more to those working in the middle of it than stuff I see in the media or Internet. My personal choice. 

It can be a personal choice, but random anecdotes from a tiny sample of a larger group, for whom we know can hold a range of opinions, surely isn't a good measure of the situation, particularly when we have academic papers dealing with these exact questions in a rigorous manner. What you are in essence saying is 'well, we can ignore the rigorous research into this, as these people have formed some impressions from their work'. 

[jimmyp]

6 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

That's its not particularly good. Busy time but as they say it's what they are trained for. Still able to do some non covid related work so it's not quite the apocalypse that some would have you believe. Mainly frustrated that they are often short staffed due to colleagues having to self isolate. 

It certainly could be a lot worse, let’s hope the admissions slow down soon so those elective services can continue and it doesn’t turn into the apocalypse!

 

 

[Cardinal]

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

Given you're still going with this interpretation, I'm going to assume that it's being misguided, rather than trying to misrepresent what they've said. Given the quote above, it's very clear what they're trying to say, ie that there exist people trying to use the same raw numbers to suggest that the mortality from the pandemic is negligible, or massive, but by the methods they've used, it is clear that the mortality threat is large. 

I am not going with any type of interpretation. I haven't dismissed their conclusion. I in fact agree with their statement. As you say yourself some people have used the same data to show the mortality is negligible. The writers in this report have used it to show its large. That's all I was saying. 

24 minutes ago, Albert said:

Try to avoiding being dishonest then if such accusations bother you. 

As noted though, I suspect it's more an issue of you not comprehending the quote properly, ie more being misguided than trying to deceive.

Is there a reason you result to being rude rather than having a civilised conversation? 

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

It can be a personal choice, but random anecdotes from a tiny sample of a larger group, for whom we know can hold a range of opinions, surely isn't a good measure of the situation, particularly when we have academic papers dealing with these exact questions in a rigorous manner. What you are in essence saying is 'well, we can ignore the rigorous research into this, as these people have formed some impressions from their work'. 

There are not random anecdotes iand certainly not "impressions formed". They are the experiences of people working in hospitals and GP surgeries. I would say that's a good source of information. 

At no point have I said ignore the research. 

[Cardinal]

21 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

certainly could be a lot worse, let’s hope the admissions slow down soon so those elective services can continue and it doesn’t turn into the apocalypse!

With you on that. They are experiencing a slight improvement but are based in the North East so have been under some form of restrictions for a while. Other areas still seem to be suffering though. Takes a while to turn the tide it appears! 

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Cardinal said:

I am not going with any type of interpretation. I haven't dismissed their conclusion. I in fact agree with their statement. As you say yourself some people have used the same data to show the mortality is negligible. The writers in this report have used it to show its large. That's all I was saying. 

Not really 'show', more argue. 

Before you were implying their reached this conclusion by trying to argue to that point, when their point was that their analysis came to that conclusion. 

2 hours ago, Cardinal said:

Is there a reason you result to being rude rather than having a civilised conversation? 

It's not being rude, that's just how you're interpreting the tone, much as you misinterpreted the quote. 

2 hours ago, Cardinal said:

There are not random anecdotes iand certainly not "impressions formed". They are the experiences of people working in hospitals and GP surgeries. I would say that's a good source of information. 

So what you're saying is that it's not random anecdotes, but rather, it's random anecdotes. Cool. 

2 hours ago, Cardinal said:

At no point have I said ignore the research. 

Taking anecdotes over the research is ignoring the research. 

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Albert said:

That's not what they were saying at all, and what you are trying to represent about their conclusions is at best misguided, and at worst outright dishonest. As discussed, what they were noting is that people can diddle the raw numbers, but from the argument they've presented this is indeed a significant loss of expected life. 

Why do you feel one snapshot of the NHS is a better representation than people using aggregations of data from around the UK and elsewhere? How do you reconcile that with the known range of opinions of those working in the NHS? 

You've not actually said what you think was amended/changed or otherwise. You don't really have a point, and from here I'll just assume you're peddling made up nonsense until you can actually come up with specifics and ideally a source. 

Fair enough, it's good to see you agree with my original point then. 

So no slides were amended after being quickly outed as clearly wrong? Until your able to talk in a balanced warts and all manner I will just assume it’s your job to unswervingly push a narrative 

[Albert]

25 minutes ago, Archied said:

So no slides were amended after being quickly outed as clearly wrong? Until your able to talk in a balanced warts and all manner I will just assume it’s your job to unswervingly push a narrative 

Are you seriously not even able to do something as basic as specify what you think was wrong and amended. You're discussing something that you feel is incredibly significant, so much so that we can dismiss all expert opinion on what is happening in the UK, yet you can't even name which slides. 

Ridiculous, truly ridiculous from you. 

[Cardinal]

5 hours ago, Albert said:

Taking anecdotes over the research is ignoring the research. 

I find it fascinating how you come to such random conclusions and make statements such as this. It's an interesting quality you possess. 

I, at no point, said I take anecdotes over research. I take on board both. Just think listening to people in the NHS is more reliable than the information in the media and Internet. It's too difficult to know what to believe. There has been numerous claims from both sides of the camp that have since been proved wrong. Hence why I find people I know to be a more trustworthy source. 

[Albert]

43 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

I find it fascinating how you come to such random conclusions and make statements such as this. It's an interesting quality you possess. 

I, at no point, said I take anecdotes over research. I take on board both. Just think listening to people in the NHS is more reliable than the information in the media and Internet. It's too difficult to know what to believe. There has been numerous claims from both sides of the camp that have since been proved wrong. Hence why I find people I know to be a more trustworthy source. 

It's interesting how you contradict yourself in a single post. Let's analyse. 

You start by claiming that you don't take anecdotes over research:

Quote

I, at no point, said I take anecdotes over research. I take on board both.

Then immediately following this up by confirming that you find said anecdotes more reliable than the research:

Quote

Just think listening to people in the NHS is more reliable than the information in the media and Internet. It's too difficult to know what to believe.

You claim that 'both sides' have been 'proved wrong'. That's an interesting side point. Not really sure what you're defining as 'both sides' to be honest, given the number of parties involved here. In this instance, peer reviewed research would be one side, but it's unclear when and what you think was 'proved wrong', nor what constitutes the other side in that instance. 

Quote

There has been numerous claims from both sides of the camp that have since been proved wrong.

Then finally reiterate that you do indeed take the random anecdotes over academic research. 

Quote

Hence why I find people I know to be a more trustworthy source. 

So yes, to confirm, you are indeed arguing that you take random anecdotes from people you know over academic research. 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Albert said:

Are you seriously not even able to do something as basic as specify what you think was wrong and amended. You're discussing something that you feel is incredibly significant, so much so that we can dismiss all expert opinion on what is happening in the UK, yet you can't even name which slides. 

Ridiculous, truly ridiculous from you. 

Are you seriously saying you don’t know the incident I’m referring to , are you seriously saying you are incapable of finding balance yourself unless people trawl and put links to stuff that’s massively out in the open, so much so that you CANT QUESTION ANY expert opinion 

ridiculous, truly ridiculous from you but true to form ???

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Are you seriously saying you don’t know the incident I’m referring to , are you seriously saying you are incapable of finding balance yourself unless people trawl and put links to stuff that’s massively out in the open, so much so that you CANT QUESTION ANY expert opinion 

Given the weight you're giving whatever incident it is, no, I don't know what you're referring to. 

I'm not even asking you to 'trawl', I'm asking you to refer to what egregious error you're referring to, and to articulate why it represents something as serious as you've suggested. Given you're not willing to do that, I assume that it's actually a very minor error that you've leapt upon, and you're embarrassed to actually say what it was. The fact that it's a known error, with a correction, from what you've said suggests that this is likely the case. 

1 minute ago, Archied said:

ridiculous, truly ridiculous from you but true to form ???

How is it ridiculous to want you to actually articulate your point properly? 

[Cardinal]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

start by claiming that you don't take anecdotes over research:

Let's analyse how I don't contradict myself.  I said things in the media and Internet. Nothing about research. You keep saying research, not me. Are you trying to claim that everything in the media and Internet is true? I know from reading your previous posts that you don't. 

Yes I do think certain things reported on both sides of the argument (the severity and impact of coronavirus) have been incorrect. And I think if you were honest you would say the same. 

I haven't actually specified my position on things so not sure why you want to argue rather than have a conversation. Maybe something you could work on. 

 

[Cardinal]

30 minutes ago, Albert said:

yes, to confirm, you are indeed arguing that you take random anecdotes from people you know over academic

The thing is, I actually find the majority of your posts very interesting. Hearing first hand how this has been handled in Australia is great. And yes I would probably believe you more so than what I read in the papers. I guess I just trust people views as can be sceptical of the media. I am simply doing the same. Providing my experience through knowing people working in the middle of it. Overall though I don't really have a particularly strong view on any of it. I don't know enough and if I'm honest don't think anyone knows everything about it. Hence why it think you have to listen to every comment. 

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Let's analyse how I don't contradict myself.  I said things in the media and Internet. Nothing about research. You keep saying research, not me. Are you trying to claim that everything in the media and Internet is true? I know from reading your previous posts that you don't. 

Except this entire line of conversation is about you literally dismissing the findings of academic research. I've quoted that post a bit further down below. 

At no point have I claimed 'everything in the media and internet' is true, nothing of the sort in fact. My focus is, was and has remained that you dismissed the findings of an academic paper with little to no basis. The closest you reached to a basis was misinterpreting a quote you pulled from it, as previously discussed. 

16 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Yes I do think certain things reported on both sides of the argument (the severity and impact of coronavirus) have been incorrect. And I think if you were honest you would say the same. 

This is such a poorly defined divide that it makes it meaningless to discuss. Academic work, the topic of conversation here, falls on neither side of that divide. 

16 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

I haven't actually specified my position on things so not sure why you want to argue rather than have a conversation. Maybe something you could work on. 

We're discussing the previous point where you rejected the findings of an academic paper, then declared that you found random anecdotes more reliable. 

Anyhow, here is a key post of yours from this line of conversation. You can reach it by just following the quotes back if you wish. 

On 13/11/2020 at 18:22, Cardinal said:

From the exact same report they admit there are many different ways to show mortality but they have chosen to highlight the worst one. 

In this paper, we provide several different ways to think about the mortality of the epidemic. It is possible to portray the death toll in a way that feels overwhelmingly large, but it is also possible to describe it in a way that makes the epidemic mortality seem almost negligible. Our view is that COVID-19 should be seen as an extremely large mortality threat.

So I do think you have to take the loss of 11.7 years of life with a pinch of salt.

For me, its about listening to those who work in the NHS and see covid day in day out and on a broad scale. All other figures, data and information we are being fed tends to be with some motive behind them. Usually for shock value. 

There was a good example circulating on twitter yesterday saying suicides had jumped 200% due to Covid. The samaritans later released a statement to say it was false information. 

I have bolded the line showing you dismissing their findings. We have already discussed how your interpretation of the paragraph is incorrect. 

7 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

The thing is, I actually find the majority of your posts very interesting. Hearing first hand how this has been handled in Australia is great. And yes I would probably believe you more so than what I read in the papers. I guess I just trust people views as can be sceptical of the media. I am simply doing the same. Providing my experience through knowing people working in the middle of it. Overall though I don't really have a particularly strong view on any of it. I don't know enough and if I'm honest don't think anyone knows everything about it. Hence why it think you have to listen to every comment. 

I agree that nobody knows everything about the situation, and understanding of the virus is still developing, as well as how best to manage it in different contexts. That, however, isn't the point of contention between us. 

Maybe I have been a bit too laser focused on the point as discussed above, but my point is that the 11.7 years lost figure discussed isn't just 'views in the media', it's actual published research. That's not to say it's perfect, it is, after all, just an estimate based on best information available for their methodology, but it is better than just wild random speculation, and random anecdotes. That's really all my point was this whole point. Given how you have responded, I suspect that focus on what we're discussing has very much been lost at this point.