Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Does 'readers' here include everyone who will have seen this headline while scrolling through Facebook or Twitter feeds? Everyone who will see the headline on a Google search but not click on the article?

Now that's an interesting point. Are you implying that the (in this case) Guardian and Independent newspapers have a duty that their headlines, which are then essentially stolen by Google should be tailored to Google's "market"? Newspapers lose revenue because people do what you say (and Google and FB etc. do what they do - take others content and show it to their audience). And if that's possibly so, then this forces papers to perhaps create ever more eye-catching headlines to recover readers?  

But to answer your question. No the Indie and Graun readers are who the indie and graun aim their content at. And that's pretty much the more savvy end of news readership. - they grant their readers as having a brain and being able to decide. If twitter or Google nick their content and then their users are dumb, how's that the Indie's problem?

[Xela]

18 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Isn't it depressing how little we seem to value human life. I can't get my head around how desperate some people are to eat fast food and drink a pint. 

 

Trying not to pigeonhole these people that queue hours for KFC but i'd wager a big majority will be out banging pots and pans with spoons at 8pm on Thursday nights. 

I like a KFC and Maccy D's every now and again but to queue hours for one in a national pandemic lockdown is **** mental. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Xela

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I seem to recall many people, including yourself, not being entirely happy with that as a course of action, in that you felt it was rather reckless. Apologies if I'm misremembering or attributing things to you which are false, and I agree it's a free world, but it seems a little hypocritical to me.

I was unhappy with the propogation of a clear lie as part of a political campaign by Boris Johnson and others.

I see that as a different case to a headline accurately recording the words utter by an interviewee. That the interviewee is (apparently) a plum is neither here not there. The media reported Trump going on about necking bleach. Should they not have done? Was that bad? No. Was it heck. The TV, and news did in that instance tend to include a "don't try this at home" message, but supping Domestos is actually potentially fatal. An author being wrong about statistics isn't.

If you still think I'm a little hypocritical, please let me know. (and no, it's OK, I'm not offended even if you do )

Oh and Farage's immigrant poster - also both dishonest, and essentially borderline racist, as a minimum. Also not comparable to an accurate headline of someone saying something daft.

 

[StefanAVFC]

 

[markavfc40]

It seems we are past the testing peak then and are well on the way to pushing down the sombrero and flattening the curve.

 

 

[DCJonah]

It shows why we are in a mess, when meeting that random number on that specific day was a priority. 

[snowychap]

I continue to be impressed by Lewis Goodall.

[VILLAMARV]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I was unhappy with the propogation of a clear lie as part of a political campaign by Boris Johnson and others.

I see that as a different case to a headline accurately recording the words utter by an interviewee. That the interviewee is (apparently) a plum is neither here not there. The media reported Trump going on about necking bleach. Should they not have done? Was that bad? No. Was it heck. The TV, and news did in that instance tend to include a "don't try this at home" message, but supping Domestos is actually potentially fatal. An author being wrong about statistics isn't.

If you still think I'm a little hypocritical, please let me know. (and no, it's OK, I'm not offended even if you do )

Oh and Farage's immigrant poster - also both dishonest, and essentially borderline racist, as a minimum. Also not comparable to an accurate headline of someone saying something daft.

 

See to me, as I've said before, it's not necessarily about accuracy, but about ethics. And that's what is comparable about all those examples to my mind. In fact the bus language was non committal iirc, (could spend), unlike the morbid death count stuff doing the rounds in the press (would have....) 

We all know that individuals 'may have...' and that the 'at risk of' qualifier is there also, I've used them myself. But the idea that we're not allowed to discuss this issue is a fallacy. I agree that this particular interview is neither here nor there in regards to this debate. She's there to sell a book. The point to me and seemingly most others on this side of the fence is why? What is it that we would like to discuss? 

I'll happily debate trump on the merits of bleach drinking,  BJ on the merits of funding the NHS and Farage on the merits of not copying Nazi posters to sell stuff.

But the point being made is the one about lobbing a hand grenade into a conversation and hiding behind the idea of discussion building. And then, people being affronted (not necessarily yourself) about their perception of not being allowed to say things. Daily Mail 101 stuff. 

Ok, a certain amount of people may have died of/with coronovirus that may have found themselves dying within this same 12 month period. 

That's not a discussion, it's a statement, and I might add, a rather obvious one. Now what is the point?

Attempting to quantify that (as the lady in the independent has done) is pointless. Numbers won't tell us anything about where this 'discussion' may be headed.

To hide behind the idea of just wanting to discuss "the statistics" is not, statistically speaking, ethical.

[snowychap]

On the 200k testing target (from Mr Triggle):

 

[Zhan_Zhuang]

54 minutes ago, Xela said:

Trying not to pigeonhole these people that queue hours for KFC but i'd wager a big majority will be out banging pots and pans with spoons at 8pm on Thursday nights. 

I like a KFC and Maccy D's every now and again but to queue hours for one in a national pandemic lockdown is **** mental. 

Many of the same people will be hoping football is back next week too!

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

And then, people being affronted (not necessarily yourself) about their perception of not being allowed to say things. Daily Mail 101 stuff. 

Ok, a certain amount of people may have died of/with coronovirus that may have found themselves dying within this same 12 month period. 

That's not a discussion, it's a statement, and I might add, a rather obvious one. Now what is the point?

Attempting to quantify that (as the lady in the independent has done) is pointless. Numbers won't tell us anything about where this 'discussion' may be headed.

To hide behind the idea of just wanting to discuss "the statistics" is not, statistically speaking, ethical.

Not necessarily myself. Too right! 

The lady didn't attempt to quantify it, she did quantify it (and as we both agree, very wrongly).  But numbers (to me) when understood and used accurately do tell us a great deal, or will do. It's not "hiding" behind the statistics to want to actually make a genuine effort to understand what they tell us. It's for the professionals an extremely important science. The obvious and relevant example of that is in public health. All sorts of activities, habits and diseases lead to and cause death. Understanding how many people statistically die from [smoking, or boozing, or or parachuting or driving at what speed, or when drunk or ....] leads to public health measures, medical provision, development of treatments, laws to require seat belt wearing...all kinds of positive (and sometimes negative) steps.

If we (hypothetically) discover that the lethality of Covi to people in their last year of life (or as close to knowing that as we can) is very high, then extra steps can be put in place to protect them from it, or to focus drug provision to them, or whatever. If on the other hand, it's equally lethal to all parts and sectors of the population, then prioritisation of limited resources might be focused, if anywhere, at (say) infants, or young children. I don't think many just want to discuss the stats for the sake of it, not even stat geeks. People want to do one of two things - either gain understanding of what they show, or (perhaps like this author) twist them to suit their world view, or their personal experience. or outlook - libertarians might, like climate change deniers wish to "support" a view pro Oil drilling by twisting figures. Other need to understand and have a comprehensive grasp of them in order to prevent the world going down a dangerous path, and to call out the truth twisters. If an element of that, a small part, is broadsheet papers pointing out in their headlines people made ludicrous statement about "2/3rds would have died anyway", or "guzzle harpic", then I'm fine with that.

[Stevo985]

33 minutes ago, snowychap said:

On the 200k testing target (from Mr Triggle):

 

Dunno why they don’t just say the target is 50 million a day and then on 31st May just say “yeah we did 50 million and 1. Job done”

Edited May 6, 2020 by Stevo985

[Genie]

It doesn’t really matter how many tests they promise does it? Is there anybody saying they need/want a test but can’t get one?

Our household could have been tested ages ago but there’s no point.

If they really want to hit the target then they should rock up outside ASDA and test people as they go in.

Maybe it’s a master stroke, with everything that’s going on around the world and at home at the moment the headline on BBC website is 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Genie

[markavfc40]

Less tests undertaken yesterday than the day before but 6100 positive results compared with 4500 positive results the previous day. Surely with known daily new positive cases that high we can't relax, what are in comparison to many other countries, soft lock down measures.

Edited May 6, 2020 by markavfc40

[mikeyp102]

3 hours ago, DCJonah said:

 

Who is Chris Dyson

[Xela]

Is this one of the reasons our deaths are so high? We seem to have a lot of highly populated areas for such a small space. I think parts of Paris are the most densely populated but vast swathes of France look quite sparse, same with Spain and Italy. 

[chrisp65]

Population density is always going to be a factor.

If you’re using the Central Line there’s more chance of you coming in to contact with someone than if you live in Powys.

But I think it’s one factor from many. Literally just today, Heathrow are thinking they might consider screening air passengers for the virus. We’re just looking at rolling out contact apps. We let Cheltenham Races happen. We treated people in hospitals not knowing if the nurses were contagious. We told people in care homes they would not receive help, they would not be moved to a hospital. 

We had a fairly average hand of cards. We’ve played them quite poorly.

[wazzap24]

As I read on Twitter earlier, both population density and population density are a problem for us. 

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

It shows why we are in a mess, when meeting that random number on that specific day was a priority. 

Appalling isn’t it ? 

[Davkaus]

That is the worst scaling I've ever seen in my life. 1, 73, 160, 455, 21027?!