Dec '21 COVID Outbreak

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Stats are no use to anyone without the source or the background data.

For example, your stat could encompass 2 people. One 21 year old, unvaccinated and one 97 year old vaccinated. And this, IMO, is why the covid problem has rumbled on for 2 years. No one in charge of the data knows what to do with the data.
Not wrong but the average person really sucks at understanding data and differentiating good data from flawed data. Therefore, anyone can throw a pile of shit data out there and half the world now thinks it’s a fact.
 
There was a nurse on the news this morning, video call so her face and name clear for everyone to see, who said in her hospital the ratio is 50/50 of un/vaccinated patients in icu
So half are from the 80% of the population that's vaccinated and the other half from the 20% that's unvaccinated. So unvaccinated are 4 times more likely to end up in the hospital. Good to know.
 
If 90% are vaccinated, that shows the vaccine is having a huge impact unless you are simple and can’t compute basic stats
I was more referring to the post he was responding to. Seemed like he was questioning an anonymous source but then validating a source because the person showed their face.

More likely the 2nd source fit his agenda so he chose to believe it.
 
FYI, per American sports the standard seems to be that an athlete can return to play if one of the two following conditions is met:
1) 10 day quarantine
2) 2 negative PCR tests within 24 hours

If we have 2 players back for Leicester, maybe we’ve had someone with a positive case test return some negative tests.
 
Not wrong but the average person really sucks at understanding data and differentiating good data from flawed data. Therefore, anyone can throw a pile of shit data out there and half the world now thinks it’s a fact.
My least favourite stat is "x amount of people who have died within 28 days of receiving a positive covid test"

Fuck does that mean? How many of them would not have died but for covid?
Terrible, vague stat that doesn't tell me what we need to know. That to me suggests they're mearly taking 2 stats. Positive tests and number of deaths.
No relationship between the two. Not using any increase on previous death stats. Not even checking what the cause of death actually was.

Could be that 150 people died within 28 days of a positive test and 120 of them were in their 90s and....well.....you get it.
They don't seem to have figured out that, that is an important data point that they're not using well.
 
Just that this nurse was not hiding behind anonymity like the one in the article previously quoted.
Any comment on the hospital my girlfriend was working at that has 32 of 33 ICU patients being unvaccinated? Our areas vac rate is 60%.

Or because I don’t tell you my real name and random internet girl has, her info is correct and mine is made up?

There’s nothing wrong with questioning either piece of data but you are obviously making your argument to meet your agenda.
 
My least favourite stat is "x amount of people who have died within 28 days of receiving a positive covid test"

Fuck does that mean? How many of them would not have died but for covid?
Terrible, vague stat that doesn't tell me what we need to know. That to me suggests they're mearly taking 2 stats. Positive tests and number of deaths.
No relationship between the two. Not using any increase on previous death stats. Not even checking what the cause of death actually was.

Could be that 150 people died within 28 days of a positive test and 120 of them were in their 90s and....well.....you get it.
They don't seem to have figured out that, that is an important data point that they're not using well.
Agree and it sucks because people who don’t believe in Covid use this to validate their belief that its all a conspiracy of lies.

When it doesn’t support any lying, it’s just poor incomplete data.
 
Any comment on the hospital my girlfriend was working at that has 32 of 33 ICU patients being unvaccinated? Our areas vac rate is 60%.

Or because I don’t tell you my real name and random internet girl has, her info is correct and mine is made up?

There’s nothing wrong with questioning either piece of data but you are obviously making your argument to meet your agenda.

What are you talking about, I don't have any agenda. This nurse appeared on BBC breakfast news and was detailing her experiences and all I did was respond to the post questioning the anonymous nurse source of an article in the Guardian. That was the main reason of posting that reply, that a nurse was brave enough to appear on TV and not hide behind anonymity, not what data she was revealing because as we all know data can be twisted to suit any agenda.
 
FYI, per American sports the standard seems to be that an athlete can return to play if one of the two following conditions is met:
1) 10 day quarantine
2) 2 negative PCR tests within 24 hours

If we have 2 players back for Leicester, maybe we’ve had someone with a positive case test return some negative tests.
We don’t play in the MLS, hope this helps
 
My least favourite stat is "x amount of people who have died within 28 days of receiving a positive covid test"

Fuck does that mean? How many of them would not have died but for covid?
Terrible, vague stat that doesn't tell me what we need to know. That to me suggests they're mearly taking 2 stats. Positive tests and number of deaths.
No relationship between the two. Not using any increase on previous death stats. Not even checking what the cause of death actually was.

Could be that 150 people died within 28 days of a positive test and 120 of them were in their 90s and....well.....you get it.
They don't seem to have figured out that, that is an important data point that they're not using well.
I’ve seen a stat that c.80% of those numbers are solely down to Covid.
 
What are you talking about, I don't have any agenda. This nurse appeared on BBC breakfast news and was detailing her experiences and all I did was respond to the post questioning the anonymous nurse source of an article in the Guardian. That was the main reason of posting that reply, that a nurse was brave enough to appear on TV and not hide behind anonymity, not what data she was revealing because as we all know data can be twisted to suit any agenda.
Sorry thought you were a covidiot.

I don’t know the UKs policy on protecting medical data so hopefully these people aren’t breaking the law and getting punished for it.
 
I’ve seen a stat that c.80% of those numbers are solely down to Covid.
But even that doesn't tell the full picture.
How many of them were excessively old, critically ill or just ready "to go" already?
You can't call something a killer virus if that person would have been tipped over the edge by a strong cold. If you do, then we should all be in lockdown all the time.

What they need to do is examine:
How many people under the age of say 70 have died of covid
How many of those had no underlying health issues
Rule out everyone that had a positive result but no symptoms and died of something else
Split those deaths into vaccinated and unvaccinated
Then you start to see a true picture of how covid affects the population.

What is interesting, is that it's not beyond reason, that this kind of data gathering is happening behind the scenes. But perhaps the people in charge just think all of the public are idiots and dumb it down.
 
Back
Top Bottom