Discussion:
Oh dear
Add Reply
krw
2020-05-05 22:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One rule for you and one rule for me:


https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/05/government-coronavirus-scientist-resigns-meeting-married-lover-lockdown-12659413/
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Kate B
2020-05-06 16:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/05/government-coronavirus-scientist-resigns-meeting-married-lover-lockdown-12659413/
And still another for Robert Jenrick, who also broke the lockdown and
yet is pontificating away at Downing Street right now.
--
Kate B
London
Peter Percival
2020-05-06 16:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kate B
Post by krw
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/05/government-coronavirus-scientist-resigns-meeting-married-lover-lockdown-12659413/
And still another for Robert Jenrick, who also broke the lockdown and
yet is pontificating away at Downing Street right now.
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs. Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
There is a strange item in the news: Neil Ferguson won't be fined. But
surely, if there are fines to be levied at all, it is Antonia Staats who
should should be fined.
krw
2020-05-06 18:24:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kate B
Post by krw
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/05/government-coronavirus-scientist-resigns-meeting-married-lover-lockdown-12659413/
And still another for Robert Jenrick, who also broke the lockdown and
yet is pontificating away at Downing Street right now.
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs.  Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
There is a strange item in the news: Neil Ferguson won't be fined.  But
surely, if there are fines to be levied at all, it is Antonia Staats who
should should be fined.
Should I feel sorry for her husband or children?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Sid Nuncius
2020-05-06 18:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs.  Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
In all the reports I have seen the faces of patients (and some staff)
are pixellated to preserve anonymity. I assume those whose faces are
identifiable have given consent - I would be very surprised if it were
otherwise.

May I ask
1) Whether your anger is also directed at other broadcasters reporting
from ICUs or are you only enraged when the BBC does it?
and
2) If, as you have told us, you do not have a television and therefore
presumably have not seen any of the reports, what leads you to assert
that medical confidentiality is breached in BBC reports?
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Peter Percival
2020-05-06 19:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs.  Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
In all the reports I have seen the faces of patients (and some staff)
are pixellated to preserve anonymity.  I assume those whose faces are
identifiable have given consent - I would be very surprised if it were
otherwise.
May I ask
1) Whether your anger is also directed at other broadcasters reporting
from ICUs or are you only enraged when the BBC does it?
I only listen to the BBC radio/view the BBC website, so I don't know if
others do do it.
Post by Sid Nuncius
and
2) If, as you  have told us, you do not have a television and therefore
presumably have not seen any of the reports
Heard/read.
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert
that medical confidentiality is breached in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Peter Percival
2020-05-06 21:21:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs.  Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
In all the reports I have seen the faces of patients (and some staff)
are pixellated to preserve anonymity.  I assume those whose faces are
identifiable have given consent - I would be very surprised if it were
otherwise.
May I ask
1) Whether your anger is also directed at other broadcasters reporting
from ICUs or are you only enraged when the BBC does it?
I only listen to the BBC radio/view the BBC website, so I don't know if
others do do it.
Post by Sid Nuncius
and
2) If, as you  have told us, you do not have a television and
therefore presumably have not seen any of the reports
Heard/read.
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached in
BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
I also don't like the way numbers of deaths in the US are reported with
so much glee. The thinking seems to be: Trump must be attacked at every
opportunity, if many people die it's his fault, therefore it pleases us
to report a high number of deaths. I had already found the BBC's
constant attacks on Trump tedious, now I find them distasteful.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-06 23:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:21:22, Peter Percival
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
[]
Post by Peter Percival
I also don't like the way numbers of deaths in the US are reported with
Well, certainly without scaling for population. So many people saying
that must have got through to somebody, as they finally showed a deaths
chart that _was_ scaled for population (the slides are at
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
), but (a) they used a logarithmic scale - _not_ appropriate! - and (b)
the USA is mysteriously missing.
Post by Peter Percival
so much glee. The thinking seems to be: Trump must be attacked at
every opportunity, if many people die it's his fault, therefore it
pleases us to report a high number of deaths. I had already found the
BBC's constant attacks on Trump tedious, now I find them distasteful.
I find Trump dangerous, boorish, and (sometimes) an idiot. However, *IF*
what is claimed in https://t.co/sxx03Qenat?amp=1 (goes to
is true,
the disinfectant claims actually result from them taking a
fiftysomething minute conference, and snipping out two 25-minute
sections, so Trump seems to say what he didn't, and the lady scientist
who appears so horrified was actually reacting to something completely
different. (The presenter does say the other media did more or less the
same, so I don't know why he keeps repeating BBC; he obviously doesn't
like them.)

Of course, this could also be a fake.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)
Nick Odell
2020-05-07 14:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 00:56:40 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find Trump dangerous, boorish, and (sometimes) an idiot. However, *IF*
what is claimed in https://t.co/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (goes to
is true,
the disinfectant claims actually result from them taking a
fiftysomething minute conference, and snipping out two 25-minute
sections, so Trump seems to say what he didn't, and the lady scientist
who appears so horrified was actually reacting to something completely
different. (The presenter does say the other media did more or less the
same, so I don't know why he keeps repeating BBC; he obviously doesn't
like them.)
Of course, this could also be a fake.
Yes to that last sentence, IMO.
(Links obscured to not further their publicity)

Every news organisation I can find - politically left, right and
centre - attributes the remarks squarely to the president and how a
two to three hour long ramble has been edited down to fit a
ninety-second slot on any news programme seems neither here nor there.
Even Fox News put out warnings - albeit late in the day - and made no
attempt to place the blame elsewhere.

Who is that guy on the video? No, no, I do not really want to know.
The YouTube channel calls itself Politico but it does not have the
branding of the real Politico and since the first image I see on the
videos page is a Free Tommy Robinson t-shirt, that really is enough
for me.

Nick
krw
2020-05-09 22:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
but (a) they used a logarithmic scale - _not_ appropriate!
The use of the logarithmic scale has almost been endemic on the "Days
since 50 deaths" graphs. I feel these have distorted understanding
leading people to believe that rates were flattening when this was not
the case.

My favourite measure at the moment is the 7 day rolling average on
certain graphs as this gets out of the low weekend reporting. It is on
a downward trend - but not fast enough.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-09 23:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
but (a) they used a logarithmic scale - _not_ appropriate!
The use of the logarithmic scale has almost been endemic on the "Days
since 50 deaths" graphs. I feel these have distorted understanding
leading people to believe that rates were flattening when this was not
the case.
I'm usually cross because a logarithmic scale _isn't_ used where it
would make sense to do so; probably in the early days when it _was_
exponential. But using it where the _linear_ slope is decreasing (or
even steady) isn't helpful.
Post by krw
My favourite measure at the moment is the 7 day rolling average on
certain graphs as this gets out of the low weekend reporting. It is on
a downward trend - but not fast enough.
On the whole, yes, it's good - as you say, it smoothes out the weekend
dips. (If it was me, I'd colour the weekend bars a different colour, but
no matter.) Another one I'm following - though it's only mentioned very
fleetingly in passing, but not graphed - is the _total_ in hospital.
(Mostly going down, though up 0.18% today. Around 12k.)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!

* I hope UMRA is somewhere I don't have to do silly back-pedalling for
using the word "only" there.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise
has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of
"How's DX?" column in "QST")
Penny
2020-05-10 08:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
Anecdotal evidence (I know a couple of people who have suffered) suggests
there is more than one 'peak' to the illness - though this may not be due
to the coronavirus itself.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-11 01:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
Post by Penny
Anecdotal evidence (I know a couple of people who have suffered) suggests
there is more than one 'peak' to the illness - though this may not be due
to the coronavirus itself.
My brother and partner think they've had it; I'm pretty certain I
haven't (unless I was completely asymptomatic).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the
truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2
John Ashby
2020-05-11 05:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.

john
Penny
2020-05-11 07:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:57 +0100, John Ashby <***@yahoo.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
Or it means they don't know/understand (or can't correctly speak) the
actual numbers and are making it up...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris J Dixon
2020-05-11 07:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Ashby
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
Or it means they don't know/understand (or can't correctly speak) the
actual numbers and are making it up...
You mean, for instance, when Johnson said "So that – all told –
we are testing literally hundreds of thousands of people every
day."

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Jim Easterbrook
2020-05-11 08:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Ashby
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
Or it means they don't know/understand (or can't correctly speak) the
actual numbers and are making it up...
You mean, for instance, when Johnson said "So that – all told – we are
testing literally hundreds of thousands of people every day."
In a scripted, pre-recorded, speech. A lie.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Tony Smith Gloucestershire
2020-05-11 08:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It seems I can go for a drive unless I cross the border, in which case the Heddlu will nab me.

There was a report a while ago that, conversely, the Gardai were unable to do anything about day-trippers from Northern Ireland.
Mike
2020-05-11 07:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
Or it means they don't know/understand (or can't correctly speak) the
actual numbers and are making it up...
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
--
Toodle Pip
Chris J Dixon
2020-05-11 08:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
I'm also a bit concerned about the maths of the equation they
have published:

COVID Alert Level = R + Number of Infections

Especially when we have also been told that the answer is between
1 and 5

Logically it also seems to mean that increased testing will raise
the alert level.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
krw
2020-05-11 12:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
I'm also a bit concerned about the maths of the equation they
COVID Alert Level = R + Number of Infections
Especially when we have also been told that the answer is between
1 and 5
Logically it also seems to mean that increased testing will raise
the alert level.
Chris
Can I ask EU please? How can anyone actually measure R? I understand
that such a parameter exists but until you ask Patient N how many
contacts he has had in the last (what 14) days and then test each and
ever one of them you might get some idea of the value of R in a
particular instance but said individual may have infected others of whom
he had no knowledge and indeed some of the ones with whom he had contact
may actually have been infected by an unknown third party.

So we are relying on knowing something which we cannot measure.

Isn't that all a little uncertain or is Shroedinger's cat been allowed
out of his box?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike
2020-05-11 12:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
I'm also a bit concerned about the maths of the equation they
COVID Alert Level = R + Number of Infections
Especially when we have also been told that the answer is between
1 and 5
Logically it also seems to mean that increased testing will raise
the alert level.
Chris
Can I ask EU please? How can anyone actually measure R? I understand
that such a parameter exists but until you ask Patient N how many
contacts he has had in the last (what 14) days and then test each and
ever one of them you might get some idea of the value of R in a
particular instance but said individual may have infected others of whom
he had no knowledge and indeed some of the ones with whom he had contact
may actually have been infected by an unknown third party.
So we are relying on knowing something which we cannot measure.
Isn't that all a little uncertain or is Shroedinger's cat been allowed
out of his box?
Rather sounds to me as though R0 can only be ascertain somewhat later than
any given date - once the actual figures of infection can be related to a
time-line; this suggests that today’s figure for R0 will be available for
scrutiny once a further 14 - 21 days(?) have passed?
--
Toodle Pip
Chris B
2020-05-11 12:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
I'm also a bit concerned about the maths of the equation they
COVID Alert Level = R + Number of Infections
Especially when we have also been told that the answer is between
1 and 5
Logically it also seems to mean that increased testing will raise
the alert level.
Chris
Can I ask EU please?  How can anyone actually measure R?
I don't think its actually measured as such (else I don't think there
would be so much uncertainty as to what it is) but its an estimated
statistical concept based on how fast the number of people with the
disease grows.

I understand
that such a parameter exists but until you ask Patient N how many
contacts he has had in the last (what 14) days and then test each and
ever one of them you might get some idea of the value of R in a
particular instance but said individual may have infected others of whom
he had no knowledge and indeed some of the ones with whom he had contact
may actually have been infected by an unknown third party.
So we are relying on knowing something which we cannot measure.
To an extent yes. But it depends on what you mean by relying and how
accurately you need to estimate. If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8
the actions/precautions are somewhat different to if you think they are
between 3.4 and 3.8.
Isn't that all a little uncertain
Its very uncertain, and that seems to be what the great British public
and journalists cant get their head round. They seem to want "absolute
guarantees" that they are at no risk. Life's not like that.

or is Shroedinger's cat been allowed
out of his box?
--
Chris B (News)
krw
2020-05-11 14:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.

How about publishing the number of people tested and the number positive
(for the same day - so comparing like with like). At the moment it
might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number" reported
positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday, just x,000
were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?

Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Peter Percival
2020-05-11 15:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number positive
(for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the moment it
might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number" reported
positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday, just x,000
were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
krw
2020-05-11 21:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number
positive (for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the
moment it might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number"
reported positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday,
just x,000 were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
All of the numbers bother me because they don't seem to stick to one
consistent basis, they are not compiled to an international standard as
far as I can see and they talk about different numbers on different days
to suit a PR message.

This scale is never capable of being 1 - as defined - so we are in a
police state forever.

They want to damage the huge improvements on the environment by telling
us to drive instead of using public transport.

They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.

Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't. So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something. And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden? I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?

Amongst many other variations.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Vicky Ayech
2020-05-12 07:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Peter Percival
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number
positive (for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the
moment it might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number"
reported positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday,
just x,000 were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
All of the numbers bother me because they don't seem to stick to one
consistent basis, they are not compiled to an international standard as
far as I can see and they talk about different numbers on different days
to suit a PR message.
This scale is never capable of being 1 - as defined - so we are in a
police state forever.
They want to damage the huge improvements on the environment by telling
us to drive instead of using public transport.
They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.
Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't. So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something. And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden? I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?
Amongst many other variations.
This is worrying too.
https://www.hsj.co.uk/government-to-make-emergency-changes-to-mental-health-act/7027149.article
"changes to the Mental Health Act, due to concerns there will be a
lack of psychiatrists available to assess people that may need to be
sectioned and admitted to hospital.

Several senior NHS sources told HSJ that temporary changes are likely
to include reducing the number of appropriate psychiatrists needed to
urgently assess whether someone should be sectioned, in case of staff
shortages.

Currently two doctors are required under the Act to carry out an
assessment, one of which has to be a “section 12” approved doctor, but
new legislation is likely to allow for just one doctor.

This is due to concerns that the number of doctors available to make
assessments is likely to reduce as coronavirus spreads, as there is an
assumption that significant numbers of NHS staff will have to
self-isolate if they have symptoms.

Professor Wendy Burn, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
said: “We’re supportive of this during this time of crisis. This is
about keeping patients safe."

This is in operation
Mike
2020-05-12 07:47:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Peter Percival
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number
positive (for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the
moment it might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number"
reported positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday,
just x,000 were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
All of the numbers bother me because they don't seem to stick to one
consistent basis, they are not compiled to an international standard as
far as I can see and they talk about different numbers on different days
to suit a PR message.
This scale is never capable of being 1 - as defined - so we are in a
police state forever.
They want to damage the huge improvements on the environment by telling
us to drive instead of using public transport.
They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.
Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't. So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something. And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden? I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?
Amongst many other variations.
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2020-05-12 08:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:47:42 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Nice idea Mike but, during a party of any sort you get small groups of
people chatting together. Zoom may be great in a conference or lesson
setting (though I find it exhausting) but you can't break off into small
groups for a chat. With a lot of people talking at once, no one would be
heard.

The newsgroup setting has always struck me as being very like a pub. But
you can pop in at any time convenient to you, join in with any of the
conversations going on, or start one yourself. All while sitting in the
comfort of your own home, eating and drinking whatever you have on hand.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2020-05-12 08:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Nice idea Mike but, during a party of any sort you get small groups of
people chatting together. Zoom may be great in a conference or lesson
setting (though I find it exhausting) but you can't break off into small
groups for a chat. With a lot of people talking at once, no one would be
heard.
The newsgroup setting has always struck me as being very like a pub. But
you can pop in at any time convenient to you, join in with any of the
conversations going on, or start one yourself. All while sitting in the
comfort of your own home, eating and drinking whatever you have on hand.
Meanwhile.... in the Choccy Bunker.... ;-)))
--
Toodle Pip
Chris McMillan
2020-05-12 11:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Nice idea Mike but, during a party of any sort you get small groups of
people chatting together. Zoom may be great in a conference or lesson
setting (though I find it exhausting) but you can't break off into small
groups for a chat. With a lot of people talking at once, no one would be
heard.
The newsgroup setting has always struck me as being very like a pub. But
you can pop in at any time convenient to you, join in with any of the
conversations going on, or start one yourself. All while sitting in the
comfort of your own home, eating and drinking whatever you have on hand.
You can, but I don’t know how. Tony in Glos might know. We do it as part
of our church service. There must be a instruction ‘room’ because that’s
how it works. You set a time to stsy in the group before ‘re-grouping’.

I do find ten minutes flies by!

Sincerely Chris
Vicky Ayech
2020-05-12 11:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Nice idea Mike but, during a party of any sort you get small groups of
people chatting together. Zoom may be great in a conference or lesson
setting (though I find it exhausting) but you can't break off into small
groups for a chat. With a lot of people talking at once, no one would be
heard.
The newsgroup setting has always struck me as being very like a pub. But
you can pop in at any time convenient to you, join in with any of the
conversations going on, or start one yourself. All while sitting in the
comfort of your own home, eating and drinking whatever you have on hand.
I did like the idea of a zoom BBQ but now you say it, Penny, we had
second daughter's 45th birthday meeting on zoom on Sunday with only
three children, two on one connection,and it was very noisy. It was
lovely to see them, big brother and small sister were against various
clever backdrops, a huge cake with candles,in the sea, animals behind
them etc, and talking and laughing, and their 3 year old cousin was
wrestling his mum and dad and talking too, but there was not a lot of
conversation :).
Sally Thompson
2020-05-12 09:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by krw
Post by Peter Percival
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number
positive (for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the
moment it might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number"
reported positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday,
just x,000 were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
All of the numbers bother me because they don't seem to stick to one
consistent basis, they are not compiled to an international standard as
far as I can see and they talk about different numbers on different days
to suit a PR message.
This scale is never capable of being 1 - as defined - so we are in a
police state forever.
They want to damage the huge improvements on the environment by telling
us to drive instead of using public transport.
They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.
Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't. So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something. And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden? I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?
Amongst many other variations.
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
I'm up for that!
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Chris McMillan
2020-05-12 11:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by krw
Post by Peter Percival
Post by krw
If you think its between 0.4 and 0.8 the actions/precautions are
somewhat different to if you think they are between 3.4 and 3.8.
But it appears to be down to someone's thinking rather than a real
measurement.
How about publishing the number of people tested and the number
positive (for the same day - so comparing like with like).  At the
moment it might be yesterday's "number" of tests but the "number"
reported positive does not (as I understand it) relate to yesterday,
just x,000 were positive and were probably tested 2 - x days ago?
Given the computers at our disposal and the whole of Imperial College
able to get in on the act why are the numbers so rubbish?
Is it R_0 (the basic reproduction number) that concerns you?
All of the numbers bother me because they don't seem to stick to one
consistent basis, they are not compiled to an international standard as
far as I can see and they talk about different numbers on different days
to suit a PR message.
This scale is never capable of being 1 - as defined - so we are in a
police state forever.
They want to damage the huge improvements on the environment by telling
us to drive instead of using public transport.
They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.
Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't. So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something. And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden? I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?
Amongst many other variations.
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Seconded - and I know how to use Zoom, but not how to set up the event.

In fact this would be better: Gumrat, Jo and Anne needn’t cross any
borders.

Sincerely Chris
Sally Thompson
2020-05-12 16:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Mike
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Seconded - and I know how to use Zoom, but not how to set up the event.
In fact this would be better: Gumrat, Jo and Anne needn’t cross any
borders.
I regularly host Zoom get-togethers, so I know how, and I'm sure there are
others.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Vicky Ayech
2020-05-12 17:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 12 May 2020 16:47:25 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Chris McMillan
Just a thought, an Umra BBQ in the garden with 84 ‘rats would have needed a
larger garden than we have - how about a Zoom ‘e-BBQ’ then? That way,
everything would be prepared and cooked ‘just how you like it’, veggies
would have no ‘separation on the grill surface’ problems at all and even
those who smoke would cause no discomfort to otherats - I commend the idea
to the house. ;-)))
Seconded - and I know how to use Zoom, but not how to set up the event.
In fact this would be better: Gumrat, Jo and Anne needn’t cross any
borders.
I regularly host Zoom get-togethers, so I know how, and I'm sure there are
others.
So shall we all meet in Sally's zoom room? When? A BBQ usually lasted
from around 12 or 1 until 5 or 6, didn't it? That would be a long time
to zoom, but would it be possible to keep a room open and people drop
in and out? It can be tiring so might be nice to do half an hour
andmaybe later too if differnt people are there. Or should it be a set
time?

Kate B
2020-05-12 10:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
They now tell us it is good to be outside - but the public parks such as
NT locations and so on have been locked up for weeks - we could have
been out there getting better not suffering.
Apparently at one point today two people could meet one person but then
they couldn't.  So if the good wife and I go out and accidentally meet
Mr and Mrs X in the park, stop and chat and we all stay 6ft apart we are
now breaking the rules; parents - two of them can meet one child or
perhaps they can't because it depends on something.  And why can I only
meet one person in the park but not equally distant in my own back
garden?  I don't want them in the house or using my bathroom - but how
can that be a rule?
Amongst many other variations.
And no-one has mentioned all those VE street parties, let alone the
Twilight Clapping, where households are pictured out on the street
chatting with other households. In our street on Friday afternoon there
were children racing about up and down the street while their parents
chatted with other adults. I don't think anyone actually broke the 2
metre rule but there were dozens of people out on the street that day.
Mingling!
--
Kate B
London
Chris McMillan
2020-05-12 11:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
The gummint making up statistics???!!! Wash your mouth out Penny! Lies,
damn lies, and statistics.
I'm also a bit concerned about the maths of the equation they
COVID Alert Level = R + Number of Infections
Especially when we have also been told that the answer is between
1 and 5
Logically it also seems to mean that increased testing will raise
the alert level.
Chris
Abd we know we need all lerts

Sincerely Chris
Sam Plusnet
2020-05-11 21:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
Or it means they don't know/understand (or can't correctly speak) the
actual numbers and are making it up...
Like the "We achieved our 100,000 test milestone" claim was fudged by
pretending that the "test kits posted out on that day" could be counted
as "tests carried out"?

Carefully calculated dishonesty.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-11 14:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 06:17:57, John Ashby <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[]
Post by John Ashby
On Saturday they reported 93k tests on 64k people. Which seems to mean
that 29k were immediate re-tests because the test hadn't been performed
properly or double testing for quality assurance purposes. That's 45%
which is by no means small.
john
No, I think it's more likely retests of, e. g., health workers, because
- AFAIK - the "have you had it" tests (probably antibody detection test)
don't really exist yet, so all they've got is the "have you got it now"
type. I would expect (rather, hope!) that NHS workers, say, are being
tested regularly (at least once a week, possibly daily), assuming
they've previously tested negative. Rather than bad tests. In other
words, because a "you haven't got it now" result has little longevity.
(Yes, some double testing for QA purposes - i. e. to make sure the tests
are actually worth doing - should be done, but nowhere near 45%.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have met."
- John J. Kinyon
Mike
2020-05-11 07:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Sun, 10 May 2020 00:21:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The irritating - to me, anyway - is the gap: there are 4k-5k new _cases_
a day, but only* a few hundred _deaths_ a day. So in the absence of any
figure for anything else, there's a _rise_ of at least 3k a day - or a
total of ~180k. I _presume_ (well, I hope!) that this is not the case
and people are getting better - but I'd like some honesty about this!
Surely that has more to do with the increase in testing outside hospitals.
They are not necessarily 'new', just cases not previously recorded.
You're probably right. Which is interesting in itself: they're
struggling to get a bit under 100k tests a day - a fair number of whom,
I believe, are people being tested because they have symptoms. So - even
of symptomatic people - only about 4% are actually showing up as even
_having_ it, let alone having it bad. (OK, that's 100k/day new tests
rather than new people - some people are tested more than once - but
that's not a huge effect.)
Post by Penny
Anecdotal evidence (I know a couple of people who have suffered) suggests
there is more than one 'peak' to the illness - though this may not be due
to the coronavirus itself.
My brother and partner think they've had it; I'm pretty certain I
haven't (unless I was completely asymptomatic).
Does Peter have the words to describe how he felt?;-)))
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-11 14:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Anecdotal evidence (I know a couple of people who have suffered) suggests
there is more than one 'peak' to the illness - though this may not be due
to the coronavirus itself.
My brother and partner think they've had it; I'm pretty certain I
haven't (unless I was completely asymptomatic).
Does Peter have the words to describe how he felt?;-)))
Of course! I can't remember what they were though, other than that he
felt rotten at the worst of it.

They were pretty sure they'd got it, so self-isolated for the
then-specified time (I think a fortnight), which ended on the lockdown
day - so the day the rest of us (well, the country; I'm already a
21st-century hermit) were buckling in for the long haul, was for them
"whee, we can shop".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have met."
- John J. Kinyon
Penny
2020-05-10 08:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2020 23:22:28 +0100, krw <***@whitnet.uk> scrawled in the
dust...
Post by krw
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
but (a) they used a logarithmic scale - _not_ appropriate!
The use of the logarithmic scale has almost been endemic on the "Days
since 50 deaths" graphs. I feel these have distorted understanding
leading people to believe that rates were flattening when this was not
the case.
I don't know where you are looking, the graphs in the daily update use a
linear scale.
Worldometers offer a choice of scale on some graphs, the default is linear.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Anne B
2020-05-07 11:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs.  Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
In all the reports I have seen the faces of patients (and some staff)
are pixellated to preserve anonymity.  I assume those whose faces are
identifiable have given consent - I would be very surprised if it
were otherwise.
May I ask
1) Whether your anger is also directed at other broadcasters
reporting from ICUs or are you only enraged when the BBC does it?
I only listen to the BBC radio/view the BBC website, so I don't know
if others do do it.
Post by Sid Nuncius
and
2) If, as you  have told us, you do not have a television and
therefore presumably have not seen any of the reports
Heard/read.
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
I also don't like the way numbers of deaths in the US are reported with
so much glee.  The thinking seems to be: Trump must be attacked at every
opportunity, if many people die it's his fault, therefore it pleases us
to report a high number of deaths.  I had already found the BBC's
constant attacks on Trump tedious, now I find them distasteful.
Not as distasteful as everything the Orange Moron says or does.

Anne B
Sid Nuncius
2020-05-07 04:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached in
BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from
ICUs. Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is
deemed newsworthy" in some way?
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2020-05-07 07:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from
ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is
deemed newsworthy" in some way?
I never interpret anything from that source as reading any of his posts
is an utter waste of time.
Peter Percival
2020-05-07 13:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting
from ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when
something is deemed newsworthy" in some way?
I never interpret anything from that source as reading any of his posts
is an utter waste of time.
I am not very good at expressing myself.
Sid Nuncius
2020-05-07 17:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting
from ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when
something is deemed newsworthy" in some way?
I never interpret anything from that source as reading any of his
posts is an utter waste of time.
I am not very good at expressing myself.
Nonsense. You express yourself with great clarity and robustness.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Peter Percival
2020-05-07 18:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is
breached in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting
from ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when
something is deemed newsworthy" in some way?
I never interpret anything from that source as reading any of his
posts is an utter waste of time.
I am not very good at expressing myself.
Nonsense.  You express yourself with great clarity and robustness.
It's kind of you to say so, but I never had anything to say about
significant topics, and I am ignorant of just about everything.
Tony Smith Gloucestershire
2020-05-07 18:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, 7 May 2020 19:30:52 UTC+1, Peter Percival wrote:

<snipped>
Post by Peter Percival
and I am ignorant of just about everything.
Like Socrates, wisest of mortals, because he knew that he knew nothing.
Peter Percival
2020-05-07 13:25:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from
ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is
deemed newsworthy" in some way?
Maybe. I think "doesn't seem to" makes it a speculation rather than an
assertion.
Sid Nuncius
2020-05-07 17:24:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting
from ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when
something is deemed newsworthy" in some way?
Maybe.  I think "doesn't seem to" makes it a speculation rather than an
assertion.
I am not interested in engaging with sophistry. I withdraw from this
discussion.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Sam Plusnet
2020-05-07 21:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Sid Nuncius
, what leads you to assert that medical confidentiality is breached
in BBC reports?
I don't think I asserted as much.
Have I misinterpreted "What angers me is BBC journalists reporting
from ICUs.  Medical confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when
something is deemed newsworthy" in some way?
Maybe.  I think "doesn't seem to" makes it a speculation rather than
an assertion.
I am not interested in engaging with sophistry.  I withdraw from this
discussion.
Perhaps as well.
There can be very little left of Mr Percival's axe, so often and so
fiercely does he grind it.
--
Sam Plusnet
Nick Odell
2020-05-07 02:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 6 May 2020 17:21:03 +0100, Peter Percival
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Kate B
Post by krw
https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/05/government-coronavirus-scientist-resigns-meeting-married-lover-lockdown-12659413/
And still another for Robert Jenrick, who also broke the lockdown and
yet is pontificating away at Downing Street right now.
What angers me is BBC journalists reporting from ICUs. Medical
confidentiality doesn't seem to apply when something is deemed newsworthy.
Just be grateful you do not live in Malaysia
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52501443

Nick
Loading...