Coronavirus

[selby]

  Seven people  from three different parties have tested positive when landing back  at Cardiff airport from Zante in Greece.
  They have reported only just over 10K cases with only 262 deaths and 157 new cases today over the full emergency period for all their population
   Must like the British holiday makers which is unfair when we get seven out of a couple of hundred.
  Is someone telling porkies to save their holiday industry?

[belton rover]

I wouldn’t question your expertise, Wilts, but not everyone gets paid to spot these errors, and I’m certain that almost nobody else on here is qualified in this way.

Are you suggesting that it’s better to post a link that is full of b*llocks, hoping no one notices than not to post a link at all?

No I am saying if you are making a statement of fact then it is good to evidence it - so people can check whether it is fact or not. As you did.

If someone wants to put up a link that is full of b*llocks - or write a post that is full of b*llocks and post a link that says something different - then they deserve to be caught out.

If you have a problem with links and think that people should just be able to post b*llocks without evidencing it, well...

I’m saying the opposite, actually.

I’m saying people should be able to give their personal opinion without supporting it by linking b*llocks

[SydneyRover]

In the early days of the virus johnson spoke of 'getting the drop' in trade terms over other countries of being smarter about it and it was talked about on here.

this seems a reliable source of info

''Why is the UK approach to coronavirus so different to other countries?''

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237385-why-is-the-uk-approach-to-coronavirus-so-different-to-other-countries/#ixzz6WdeJuTVh

''Vallance said the first goal was: “To reduce the peak of the epidemic, flatten it and broaden it, so you don’t end up with so much intense pressure on healthcare systems at one time.

The second is to protect the most vulnerable people while the virus spreads through the population. He said the approach would help build up herd immunity as people recover from the disease and become immune, reducing transmission''

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237385-why-is-the-uk-approach-to-coronavirus-so-different-to-other-countries/#ixzz6WdcW2XNY

[selby]

Belton, the figures are from yesterday's figures of Worldmeter  that most look at for comparisons to beat the UK over the head with like you when it suits your rhetoric.
  It has also been reported that 11 young men returned from the same place from Plymouth with Covid.
 It looks like the place is a cesspit and just keeping it quiet to me.
 Perhaps you could do some research for yourself to confirm it.

[belton rover]

I’m not sure what your point is here, Selby.

[wilts rover]

I wouldn’t question your expertise, Wilts, but not everyone gets paid to spot these errors, and I’m certain that almost nobody else on here is qualified in this way.

Are you suggesting that it’s better to post a link that is full of b*llocks, hoping no one notices than not to post a link at all?

No I am saying if you are making a statement of fact then it is good to evidence it - so people can check whether it is fact or not. As you did.

If someone wants to put up a link that is full of b*llocks - or write a post that is full of b*llocks and post a link that says something different - then they deserve to be caught out.

If you have a problem with links and think that people should just be able to post b*llocks without evidencing it, well...

I’m saying the opposite, actually.

I’m saying people should be able to give their personal opinion without supporting it by linking b*llocks

Why has someone said they can't?

Most posters dont. But that's all it is. Their opinion with no evidence to back it up.

It's also the way fake news and disinformation spread. If you support that, again, well...

[belton rover]

If I support fake news and disinformation spread?
What on earth are you talking about?
Again, I support the opposite of that, hence me questioning the misinterpretation of links.
What is it you get paid for again?

And, no, nobody has said they can’t, but several have said that if they do, their opinions will not be respected or valued because they belong at the bottom of the hierarchy of debate (or words to that effect, before you ask me to prove who said those precise words in that exact order).

[albie]

Belton,

I am struggling to understand your point.

You took exception to the link to the Mirror I posted.
The article includes a reference to Hancock denying a herd immunity strategy, something which is well evidenced and controversial only in whether it is true.
You then agree that he said it, but that it being reported by the Mirror was the issue.

This seems to be a distinction without a difference.

The article is about the view of Sir David King on the possibility of a serious loss of life in a second wave.
This is directly relevant to the position taken by the government in managing the first wave.
To understand the view of David King you need to see how we reached the point we are at.
A link may contain more than one significant point, as here.

Sometimes a link is posted because it adds detail to the discussion........it does not mean the poster supports everything in the link.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by ;
"This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’.
It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want..."

Who are the hierarchy?.... Where is the misinterpretation of links? ......What is this bollox of which you speak?
I have no idea what you are talking about, tbh!

[wilts rover]

If I support fake news and disinformation spread?
What on earth are you talking about?
Again, I support the opposite of that, hence me questioning the misinterpretation of links.
What is it you get paid for again?

And, no, nobody has said they can’t, but several have said that if they do, their opinions will not be respected or valued because they belong at the bottom of the hierarchy of debate (or words to that effect, before you ask me to prove who said those precise words in that exact order).

I get paid for giving people factual information. Most of it is historical, some current.

I provide a link to that factual information.

Without that link it is not information nor factual. It is just my opinion.

You can question the misinterpretation of links all you want. That's your opinion that you are allowed to express as much as you wish.

There is a great deal of misinformation, fake and false news on the internet and a fair bit on this very forum. The way of determining if any particular post is fake or accurate is by providing a link to the source. Hence why I question the motives of anyone who questions links being provided.

I had a muppett I was dealing with this morning who swore he/she was correct. I could provide three sources for my information including two in the National Archives. They had an unreferenced blog post from Joe Bloggs and something their dad had heard 'a few years ago'. Still swore they were right tho.

[belton rover]

Belton,

I am struggling to understand your point.

You took exception to the link to the Mirror I posted.
The article includes a reference to Hancock denying a herd immunity strategy, something which is well evidenced and controversial only in whether it is true.
You then agree that he said it, but that it being reported by the Mirror was the issue.

This seems to be a distinction without a difference.

The article is about the view of Sir David King on the possibility of a serious loss of life in a second wave.
This is directly relevant to the position taken by the government in managing the first wave.
To understand the view of David King you need to see how we reached the point we are at.
A link may contain more than one significant point, as here.

Sometimes a link is posted because it adds detail to the discussion........it does not mean the poster supports everything in the link.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by ;
"This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’.
It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want..."

Who are the hierarchy?.... Where is the misinterpretation of links? ......What is this bollox of which you speak?
I have no idea what you are talking about, tbh!

Okay, I’ll try again.
Many people on here, including you, insist that if opinions are to be taken seriously, then good quality links to evidence that point is essential.
 You wrote and linked this:

Hancock insisting that there was no herd immunity strategy;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/up-50000-unnecessary-deaths-uk-22600532

Now, the way You wrote your point tells me, and anyone who can read, that the link should go to Hancock insisting that there was no herd immunity strategy. That doesn’t happen anywhere in the link. We could argue whether the semi colon should have been a colon or not, but either way, it is, without any doubt, a misleading opening paragraph.
The fact that their may be some valid information in the link is irrelevant to my concern about this issue.
You wanted to make a point and found a link in an attempt to authenticate the point (or vice versa), but it doesn’t, it just misleads.
It may not have been a deliberate attempt to mislead, but if it wasn’t, then it was done willy nilly.

You’ll have to ask Billy about hierarchy.

[albie]

The statement about Hancock is correct. It can only mislead if it was incorrect.
I gave you an additional source to show from earlier that it was a valid point.

It is an introduction to the issue Sir David King raises, and it is relevant to that point.

If you can't see it Belton, there is nothing more I can say to help, fella!

[belton rover]

Likewise, erm, fella.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This might help.



Or, if not...maybe this.

[belton rover]

Ha ha Billy, very good lol.

I like the pyramid. Now I know why you stopped talking to me - you were hovering around ‘attacking the writer personally’ for a while, but stopped before you started calling me names.

Oh and this might help you. No need to choose one or the other. You are an expert at both:

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpediaa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2FDifference-Between-Condescending-and-Patronizing-infographic.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpediaa.com%2Fdifference-between-condescending-and-patronizing%2F&tbnid=0x5Azv584syOYM&vet=12ahUKEwjey4WV9cXrAhVIZxoKHbJsBD8QMygBegUIARDoAQ..i&docid=pKfNWKTbdJC4tM&w=791&h=881&q=patronising%20and%20condescending&hl=en-gb&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwjey4WV9cXrAhVIZxoKHbJsBD8QMygBegUIARDoAQ

[BillyStubbsTears]

Absolutely my final post to you on this topic Belton.

I know you won't go back through our exchange, but if you did, you'd find that I treated you courteously and civilly at first.

I DID say that I don't respect opinions that are given with no support and I stick by that. If one person says, "I think A because of B, C and D" and the other person says "Well I think the opposite of A", that's not a discussion that is worth continuing.

And then, if someone repeatedly insists on utterly misquoting and/or misrepresenting what the other person has said, and when presented with the factual evidence that they have done so numerous times, replies to the effect "I don't agree that I have done anything wrong", there is literally no discussion to be had.

I confess I don't understand you. You start off making mature points but then descend rapidly into goading and personal abuse. And then wheedling complaints about not being taken seriously.

You either have some issues that lead you in that direction, or you are a WUM. Either way, best to leave it.

[belton rover]

He can give it but he can’t take it.

[belton rover]

Billy. You accuse me of personal abuse!?

You question my ability as as a professional because I disagree with you.

Then you accuse me (indirectly, just) of racism because I suggest that China, after one of the biggest cover ups ever, might not be the best to go to for honest Covid 19 advice.

You are the biggest WUM there is - you’ve just got a got a knack of accusing other people first.

It’s things like this:
 

‘AL.

I utterly give up.

Read your post again and engage brain.’

It doesn’t matter that you apologised after realising you had only skim read Axholme’s post.

Your response was patronising and condescending.

[ravenrover]

  Seven people  from three different parties have tested positive when landing back  at Cardiff airport from Zante in Greece.
  They have reported only just over 10K cases with only 262 deaths and 157 new cases today over the full emergency period for all their population
   Must like the British holiday makers which is unfair when we get seven out of a couple of hundred.
  Is someone telling porkies to save their holiday industry?

Thete seems to  consistency about the infection rate going up in Spain Greece France Portugal .............. the Brits are there on holiday

[selby]

  Raven, your racist

[wilts rover]

  Raven, your racist

Can somebody PM Selby and tell him a woke leftie has taken over his account...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Who's racist is he?

[belton rover]

That should be which racist is his?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Should actually have been "whose racist is he?" but for an incorrect autocorrect.

[belton rover]

Still wrong, but it’s interesting that when Selby is grammatically incorrect, you mock him, but when you are, it’s the fault of auto correct.

[drfchound]

It is a good job that some of the spelling mistakes aren’t pointed out on here.
Some are incredibly funny.

[belton rover]

It is a good job that some of the spelling mistakes aren’t pointed out on here.
Some are incredibly funny.

Yes hound, but that would be patrenising.

[drfchound]

It is a good job that some of the spelling mistakes aren’t pointed out on here.
Some are incredibly funny.

Yes hound, but that would be patrenising.

Love that.
I see what you did there.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Should actually have been "whose racist is he?" but for an incorrect autocorrect.

Not grammatical wrong actually, but I wouldn't patronise you by pointing out why. I'm sure you can work it out for yourself if you have another go.

As for your other point, yes, I agree, on occasion I'm a t**t. And I frequently have PM discussions to clear the air with people when I feel I've gone beyond robust humour.

But you wouldn't know about that. So on you go and do your self appointed job of being the hypocritical conscience of the forum.

[belton rover]

Should actually have been "whose racist is he?" but for an incorrect autocorrect.

Not grammatical wrong actually, but I wouldn't patronise you by pointing out why. I'm sure you can work it out for yourself if you have another go.

As for your other point, yes, I agree, on occasion I'm a t**t. And I frequently have PM discussions to clear the air with people when I feel I've gone beyond robust humour.

But you wouldn't know about that. So on you go and do your self appointed job of being the hypocritical conscience of the forum.

Selby wrote this:

‘Raven, your racist.’

We all know what he meant, but the way he wrote it suggests that Raven owned a racist and Selby was giving it to him.

Imagine the conversation continuing - it might have gone something like this:

Selby: Raven, your racist.

Raven: Thanks, mate. I’ve been looking everywhere for him.

Selby: No problem, anytime.

Raven: Fancy a pint?

Selby: Yes mate, but you’ll have to something with your racist first.


So, asking ‘who’s/whose racist is he?’ isn’t necessary because we all know he’s Raven’s racist!


Of course, all of this could have been avoided if we took Selby’s words for what we knew he meant.
And had a go at him for that instead.

As for the job - I resign. Too many people looking down on me.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've hesitated to post this because I'm not going down another rabbit hole on this, but yesterday, Belton accused me of unfairly accusing him of racist attitudes and that is a pretty strong thing to throw at someone.

For the record, I did NOT use that word. I said that Belton had a bigoted attitude on this issue of China. That was after he, by his own admission, said that we could not trust China's figures on CV-19. I've no idea what he used to make the judgment that we can't trust China, because, like on every other issue, he won't say. He just gives opinions.

On this topic, I have very good reason not to accept his opinion. There is very strong evidence that the numbers from China on the first wave deaths and the effect of their lockdown are very believable. This is why.

There's a graph down at the bottom of this post. It shows, for a whole set of countries, randomly chosen, the way in which their daily deaths grew in the first wave, then fell as they got it under control. It is data which I extracted from the website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . For countries big and small, with early and late outbreaks, who locked down quickly and slowly.

There is a quite remarkable consistency about the results. In every country, before lockdown, the rate of increase of the epidemic was very close to what you'd expect if the cases and deaths were doubling every three days.

In every country, the date of the lockdown is well established. SO we know where they were on that graph at the time of lockdown. And in every country, after the lockdown, pretty much exactly the same thing happened.

It took a while for the lockdown to have an effect on deaths, because by the time the lockdown was imposed, there were already lots of people infected who were going to die. And in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countries, what happened was that deaths went up ten fold after lockdown before the country broke the trend of deaths doubling every 3 days. And then, after breaking the trned, the deaths went up another ten fold before the first wave effectively ended.

In EVERY ONE of those countries.

Now, China was the first country in the world to be hit. The first country in the world to lockdown. The first country in the world to claim to get the first wave under control after having a serious outbreak. The locked down 2 months before we did for example, and by the time we hit our peak of the epidemic, they had been claiming to have theirs under control for weeks. Some people. like Belton, appear not to believe the numbers coming out of China. But here's a funny thing. China's trend of increasing, stabilising and then falling daily death rates, relative to the point of lockdown, follow EXACTLY the same trend as all the countries that came later. Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, UK, USA.

So, what to conclude?

You've three choices I suppose.
a) The batshit conspiracy theory that every Government in every country is cooking the books in a big conspiracy.
b) China has fiddled their numbers but by some miracle, happened to guess exactly what was going to happend everywhere else in the world and so fiddled them to suit.
c) China was pretty straight with their numbers, at least on the first wave.

I know some people will contort themselves into all sorts of shapes to avoid the bleeding obvious conclusion c), because they really don't want that to be the case. But I struggle to see how anyone can honestly look at that graph and conclude anything else. Which is why, I feel able to call someone's attitude "Bigoted" if they single out China as not to be trusted on CV-19 numbers, without explaining why, other than a "well it's China innit?" approach.