Coronavirus - the political argument

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.

Who is that weird woman in your avatar?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Meanwhile I'm also indebted to the Taxpayers Alliance for informing me today that:

'scientists from Stirling university have been awarded £400,000 of taxpayers' cash to investigate why football fans get drunk'.

I think it's because they drink too much alcohol.

Cajunboy wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.

Who is that weird woman in your avatar?

It's Tracy Spiridakos.

More lies from Jenrick.

He left his £2.5m London town house last week to travel to his grade 1 listed mansion near Leominster because he says that is his family home. However according to his official entry on the Conservative Party website he and his family "live in Southwell near Newark". He has also claimed over £100,000 from the taxpayer for this third property.

boltonbonce wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.

Who is that weird woman in your avatar?

It's Tracy Spiridakos.

Thanks, I should have known.
I only saw her the other day in our Chippy.
It seems she can't survive for long without a least two pots of mushy peas!

Which statistics are bollocks Sluffy? I haven’t bothered looking them up, just thought it was an interesting read.

The assessment that the UK government was too slow in its response was also on expressed Marr this morning by Sir Jeremy Farrar incidentally.

xmiles wrote:




Ah yes the Taxpayers Alliance: a secretive organisation funded by right wing Americans and rich Tory party donors which (like Farage) wants to move towards an "insurance-based model of healthcare".

Can't say I'm in favour of an "insurance-based model of healthcare". I find the very idea scary.

I wasn't too keen either on PFI, Virgin Healthcare or a five-day week contract for GPs that left nurses in care homes unable to summon a doctor on a Saturday or Sunday when one was needed.

But I am in favour of bearing down on incompetence, waste, neglect and fraudulent misappropriation of taxpayers money.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

xmiles wrote:




Ah yes the Taxpayers Alliance: a secretive organisation funded by right wing Americans and rich Tory party donors which (like Farage) wants to move towards an "insurance-based model of healthcare".

Can't say I'm in favour of an "insurance-based model of healthcare". I find the very idea scary.

I wasn't too keen either on PFI, Virgin Healthcare or a five-day week contract for GPs that left nurses in care homes unable to summon a doctor on a Saturday or Sunday when one was needed.

But I am in favour of bearing down on incompetence, waste, neglect and fraudulent misappropriation of taxpayers money.

Completely agree TB. Having worked in both the public and private sectors there is plenty of waste in both and there is no excuse for it in either sector.

The big difference is that the private sector is motivated only by maximising profits and dividends. You only have to look at how PFI and outsourcing has gone. If you give contracts to Capita, Serco, etc they will lie and cheat to maximise profits. They have no interest in providing a service unless they can make money from it.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Which statistics are bollocks Sluffy? I haven’t bothered looking them up, just thought it was an interesting read.

All statistics are bollocks if they are taken out of context.

The woman is simply comparing 'numbers' between Ireland and the UK and jumps to the conclusion that the difference between the two is because of the different ways we've tackled this at the beginning.

That however takes no account of stuff like population density (more people likely to catch it in cities than in the countryside) ethnicity (seems the virus effects BAME - Blacks, Asians and Minority Ethnics - in a greater proportion than its population percentage size - also tend to live in large family units and lower paid jobs - leading to more potential risk of infection) age profile (seems the virus is more fatal to the elderly - Ireland is average is less than the UK), etc, etc, etc - all of which will have direct influence the figures and non of which she's taken into account before leaping to her over simplified conclusion.

Also if you want to grossly overly simplify - wouldn't everybody and his dog have pointed the difference out between Ireland and UK a long before some random woman on twitter a day or so ago?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The assessment that the UK government was too slow in its response was also on expressed Marr this morning by Sir Jeremy Farrar incidentally.

Not really in context to what he actually was saying -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-europe-cases-deaths-uk-jeremy-farrar-testing-sage-a9461276.html

His bottom line was that we/everyone should have been on top of testing for the virus right from the start like Germany.

But Germany's political and economy is significantly structured to ours - hence a big part of the difference - which I'd already flagged up a few days earlier on here -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52234061

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Which statistics are bollocks Sluffy? I haven’t bothered looking them up, just thought it was an interesting read.

All statistics are bollocks if they are taken out of context.



Also if you want to grossly overly simplify - wouldn't everybody and his dog have pointed the difference out between Ireland and UK long before some random woman on twitter a day or so ago?

I agree, Sluffy, that you need to be careful with statistics, especially when used in political axe-grinding,  but don't forget how everybody and his dog unquestioningly lapped up the garbage published about BWFC's financial troubles.

And don't forget either that you and I were just a couple of random individuals questioning the endless supply of hogwash in the BN and elsewhere and castigated as villains for doing so.

Elaine Doyle may still be relatively young and possibly a little inexperienced but she is well-qualified and well worth listening to imo.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.

You wouldn't be a fan of 58 year-old, tax-dodging, narcissistic, publicity-seeking millionaires in ripped jeans, would you Natasha?

Me neither.

N.B. No 'D' word or 'V' word

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Which statistics are bollocks Sluffy? I haven’t bothered looking them up, just thought it was an interesting read.

All statistics are bollocks if they are taken out of context.


Also if you want to grossly overly simplify - wouldn't everybody and his dog have pointed the difference out between Ireland and UK long before some random woman on twitter a day or so ago?

I agree, Sluffy, that you need to be careful with statistics, especially when used in political axe-grinding,  but don't forget how everybody and his dog unquestioningly lapped up the garbage published about BWFC's financial troubles.

And don't forget either that and you and I were just a couple of random individuals questioning the endless supply of hogwash in the BN and elsewhere and castigated as villains for doing so.

Elaine Doyle may still be relatively young and possibly a little inexperienced but she is well-qualified and well worth listening to imo.

We actually don't know anything about the poster or how qualified they are except that they claim to be Elaine Doyle who is a writer with a degree in history from Belfast University and a masters of Philosophy at Cambridge.

There is no evidence at all (or even a claim from them) that they are knowledgeable or have experience in any way of any medicine, healthcare or mathematical/statistical knowledge.

Fwiw I took Mathematics (Statistics) at A level, many, many years ago and know enough to never to accept any claim backed up on statistical evidence without first understanding how and why those statistics were produced in the first place.  

There is a more than valid reason why everybody has heard the saying, 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.

The massive difference between you and I and the writer is that we do have extensive professional knowledge, expertise, experience and qualifications in respect of businesses (the field in which we were talking about), in our attempt to enlighten people on there misunderstanding and misinformation they were under/fed.

Yes we were/are random posters on the internet making statements for people to believe (or not) but we did base our claims on facts (documents submitted to HMRC for tax purposes copies of which filed at Companies House) and not other peoples statistics which Doyle has used to extrapolate towards her own conclusions.

Seems to me that the writer is indeed a well meaning and concerned young woman, probably using her own name and greatly emotional and empathetical over what she sees is a vast variation in outcomes between our two country's and has attributed that to how both our country's dealt with the virus at the start.  

She may well be correct but her application of the statistics on which she bases her conclusion are completely wrongly applied and takes no account of factors I've mentioned in my previous post above, to which can be added many other factors such as volume of travel, number of social interactions, adherence to social distancing (much bigger population, greater travel, more social contact - think use of public transport/the tube/inside confined spaces such as shops) etc, etc, etc leading to greater infection - all of which she simply hasn't taken into account in leaping to her conclusion.

In fact I would even go as far as saying that she started off with her end belief first then looked for statistics to justify it - ie in just the same way that many people had made their minds up about Anderson first then used the published £625k payment to validate their belief to be the right one - all but a few not looking to see how or why the £625k was arrived at or how it was used.  Anderson didn't pocket the money but the vast belief was he did and that proved he was the crook they had all originally thought he was from the start.

Elaine Doyle has an opinion - it may be correct - but her use of the statistical evidence to prove her case is totally flawed - and should be treated with the utmost caution.

The post is just a theory, it should be taken as such. But the slow response does seem the most valid hypothesis as to why we’re suffering more than others at the moment - from what I’ve read at least.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The post is just a theory, it should be taken as such. But the slow response does seem the most valid hypothesis as to why we’re suffering more than others at the moment - from what I’ve read at least.

Yes it was a personal opinion but made somewhat irresponsible by the inclusion of published statistics to give it validity that many seem to have taken as proof that she was right in what she has said. She made her personal opinion appear 'knowledgeable' and 'authoritative' in the eyes of many others.

If I may say so this is the same pointed I've been banging on about Iles for years about, whereby a person, many believe to speak with similar sort of knowledge and authority, has deliberately pushed his own 'belief' and 'opinion' in his reporting and narrative rather than than letting the facts determine what the true story really is.

Fwiw I don't believe the government were slow in response but rather they followed the wrong medical advise strategy which had been modelled on under reported information from Chinese sources on the coronavirus initial outbreak and consequently significantly underprepared for the tsunami that hit us.

None of it is irresponsible Sluffy, she just doesn’t come to the conclusion you’d like her to.

Has it been explained as to why the Cheltenham Festival was allowed to go ahead, with thousands in close proximity to each other over a few days? Surely the government should have seen the threat posed.
 It would be interesting to discover how many of those race-goers have subsequently suffered virus symptoms.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:None of it is irresponsible Sluffy, she just doesn’t come to the conclusion you’d like her to.

Eh?

I've not actually said her conclusion is wrong!

What I have said though was the application of those statistics to 'back up' her opinion/conclusion was misinterpreting them at best, that's irresponsible - facts should be the basis of how conclusions are formed - not the other way around by starting off with the conclusion you want to have and then shoehorning out of context statistical details in as 'facts' to 'prove' your point.

Also as I've not come to any conclusions myself, only my opinion of what probably happened, so how then could I want her to reach the one I would wish?

I'm certainly not irresponsible enough to imply I'm some sort of an expert about coronavirus unlike she has nor have I posted up my 'conclusion' on a major worldwide social media platform for others to gullibly believe what I say as gospel?

(My point in respect of Iles again).

People believe what they want, many seem to simply accept what is posted on social media without any apparent second thought.

I don't know what the accepted definition of 'fake news' is but if I were to imply I was some sort of authority on coronavirus and published my conclusions to the world based on statistics taken out of context, then it wouldn't surprise me if I was accused of such - but it wouldn't have stopped many believing what I had already posted to be true.

I think that would be irresponsible behaviour even if you may not.

Which statistics were misinterpreted and irresponsible then? Aside from applying Britta Jowells modelling, she’s quoted the death rates per 1,000 for both countries.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Which statistics were misinterpreted and irresponsible then? Aside from applying Britta Jowells modelling, she’s quoted the death rates per 1,000 for both countries and simply don't take into any account the numerous variances there are between the two country's so she quite clearly has taken them out of the context they were set in for her own means.

Although the death rates are factual to each country her use of them to contend as to what caused the deaths through different government policies are merely her own opinion.

In short she's drawn her conclusion based on her own opinion!

If you don't accept what I've been saying then maybe this may change your view, many of the points of which I have flagged up already as to why her use of these statistics were out of context to what they were actually reporting are stated by real live experts on the subject below and contradict the historian Doyle's view -

(Please note who the expert is on the one side of the argument when ALL the other experts are on the other side to it!)

Experts divided over comparison of UK and Ireland's coronavirus records

Comparing how the Covid-19 outbreak is playing out in Ireland and the UK is a complex task, researchers have said after a Twitter thread by a former historian on the issue went viral.
Writer and researcher Dr Elaine Doyle penned a series of tweets comparing the situations in the UK and Ireland, noting that both countries had similar numbers of intensive care beds per 100,000 people before the crisis began.
But, she wrote, “as of Saturday 11 April, there have been 6.5 deaths per 100,000 people in Ireland. There have been 14.81 deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.” Doyle went on to suggest that the difference in the way the pandemic is progressing in the two countries is that Ireland took stronger action sooner.

“While Boris [Johnson] was telling the British people to wash their hands, our taoiseach was closing the schools. While Cheltenham was going ahead, and over 250,000 people were gathering in what would have been a massive super-spreader event, Ireland had cancelled St Patrick’s Day,” she wrote, adding that watching British media was “like living in bizarro-world” compared with the messages on Irish TV news.
In the UK, the government urged against socialising, mass gathering and non-essential travel from 16 March and went into full lockdown on 23 March.
“Technically, the UK went into lockdown *before* Ireland; but that’s not a fair comparison, as we were already operating our ‘delay phase’ from 12-27 March,” Doyle wrote.
She also noted that, at the time of her post, figures suggested Ireland had performed 8.69 tests per 1,000 people, while the UK had performed 4 tests per 1,000 people – with 269,598 people tested in total as of 11 April in the UK.

Dr William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, said Doyle had made some good points, noting that he and many of his colleagues had been concerned about the UK’s early response to coronavirus, but cautioned that it was still too early to draw definitive conclusions.

“We are early on in the pandemic and it will remain to be seen how this will all pan out. However, it is unquestionable that major events such as the Cheltenham festival were major opportunities for super-spreading to occur,” he told the Guardian. “And the resulting surge can reasonably be expected to have been more severe than it would have been otherwise.”
But Prof Sheila Bird, a former programme leader at the MRC Biostatistics Unit, stressed there were many factors to consider when attempting to compare countries, including whether deaths were reported in the same way, and whether delays in reporting deaths had been taken into account.

“Third,” she said, “[is] urbanisation versus rurality of the respective populations – 83% urban for UK, 63% for Ireland.” In other words, a greater proportion of people in the UK live in towns or cities, which may contribute to the spread of a disease.

Bird said it was also important to consider how well people adhered to social distancing and lockdowns in different countries, while age was also a factor: older people are known to be at greater risk of death from Covid-19. In the UK, Bird noted, 18% of the population was aged 65 or older, compared with only 13% in Ireland.

Paul Hunter, a professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, said the UK might have had proportionately more cases, which would mean more deaths. While he accepted that the later implementation of social distancing measures in the UK might have contributed to the different outcomes, he said there were other factors to consider, including that the UK had a higher proportion of people from BAME communities – who have been found to be at higher risk from coronavirus – and that the UK was also more densely populated, had many areas of high poverty, and hospitals in London were stretched.

Keith Neal, an emeritus professor in epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham, added that the UK probably encountered its first infections earlier.
“The risk of introduction is related to the number of travellers coming back with an infection,” he said. “Although Ireland may have the same number of international travellers per head of population, your risk of first introductions is related to the number of travellers. The UK is 13 times larger in population than Ireland and London is much more of an international centre and hub than Dublin.”
That, said Neal, could be significant: “With doubling times of every two to three days, even a later introduction of the first infections by a week can have a very large effect.”

Professor Samuel McConkey, an infectious disease expert at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences in Dublin, said it was premature to compare Ireland and the UK. “I’d reserve judgment on this for two or three years,” he said.
He said Ireland’s earlier adoption of restrictions, as well as London’s population density, may partly explain greater mortality rates in the UK. “We closed restaurants, pubs, creches, schools weeks before the UK. We had quite significant political cohesion. We had our national leader tell us, ‘folks this is really bad’.”
Seán L’Estrange, a University College Dublin sociologist who has compared international testing figures, challenged Ireland’s claim to be in the top tier. Ireland claimed to follow South Korea’s model of “test, track, trace, isolate” but was in fact “uncomfortably close” to countries most removed from the strategy, such as the UK, he said.
“There are very clear differences between the ROI and UK responses. They are not, however, as large or as pronounced as Irish authorities imagine and would like its public to believe.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/experts-divided-comparison-uk-ireland-coronavirus-record

Good article, thanks for posting it. So (as thought) the slower response could have had an effect, but too early to say conclusively what that was given the other factors at play.