Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:
9 minutes ago, FTOF said:
The SQA have issued schools with lists of pupils who can appeal. Your daughter will be on that list.
I can't see any reason why she would not get upgraded.
I also can't imagine that there will be many pupils who were higher on the predicted grade list than your daughter. So if she was awarded a "B", just how many pupils got an "A"?

Can't anyone appeal - wasn't aware of any list or qualifying threshold ?

You can only appeal if the grade you received was lower than the one predicted by the school.

TBH, if teachers have been overly positive, and predicted higher grades based on evidence that doesn't back this up, then any appeal, the basis of which would be that evidence, would be unlikely to be successful.

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites




I've been telling you for years that the SQA haven't got a clue what they are doing. 
I remember one particularly ignorant poster telling me that was nonsense.
Unfortunately the figures in Slarti's table shows that some pupils in schools with lower SIMD's have suffered because their school has over estimated other pupil's grades. So, not entirely the SQA's fault.
I really can't fathom why wee bud's daughter, with 89% in her prelim has been downgraded. Her school must have predicted an A1 at the higher end of the scale. At worst she may have ended up with an A2. If she had been on the bottom of the scale for an A2, with a prelim score near the grade boundary, in the high 60's low 70's, then it would have been more understandable. In this case I think that there must have been a clerical error. There's no other rational explanation.
If the school's prelim meets the standards required by the SQA, then she will be upgraded to an A. The universities must take this unprecedented situation into consideration, in relation to the acceptance of appealed grades.
Also, anyone with pupils sitting SQA qualifications next year should be very worried. With less than a week until pupils go back, schools still have no idea what will be demanded of them in relation to SQA qualifications next year.


Wisnae mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed this on the BBC:

Quote

Police Scotland said there would be additional patrols in Aberdeen, and that officers would continue the approach shown throughout the pandemic.


Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr added: "Our officers will continue to explain the legislation and guidance but, for the minority who may choose to breach the regulations and risk the health of others, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action where appropriate."


 

However, at the moment, there isn’t actually any legislation with regards to the Aberdeen lockdown. The police cannot explain legislation that does not exist.

He talks about “breaching the regulations”. There are no regulations, only guidance.

He talks about “enforcement”. You cannot enforce guidelines.

The fact of the matter is that the Police going about doing minister’s bidding means we are in effect living in a police state.

Its role of the police to enforce the law. If there is no law in place to enforce then the police have no part to play.

The police  cannot go about explaining guidelines. That is not their duty. And the guidelines are complete and utter nonsense. 

This country is now nothing more than a fascist dictatorship.

 

 

Edited by Sue Denim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Not sure if this has already been posted today. It shows the huge disparity in teachers estimates compared to passes awarded in recent years.

If SQA had simply taken these figures there woukd have been an outcry about the pass rate.

It also shows an increase in passes this year which seems to have been overlooked by the media.

Having said that, there are individuals who have been given poorer awards than they deserved and this needs sorted quickly via the appeals process.

I'm genuinely not sure what other approach could have been taken this year as sitting exams wasn't feasible. 20200804_231043.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bazil85

new paper from Loughborough University which concludes that over half the excess deaths during lockdown have been as a result of the unintended consequences of the lockdown policy itself rather than Covid.

It states test the lockdown has increased mortality 

Yet more scientific evidence that lockdown has been lethal.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=149097083081121104112089098121114091104014059082060018071002088023117019118119006064117119051059021051011087111011117012089025020070011051015028001000074029111127084042076098095005101099121087031084095119064126098026123012107022003095104123124126094&EXT=pdf

 

Edited by Sue Denim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:



I'm genuinely not sure what other approach could have been taken this year as sitting exams wasn't feasible. 20200804_231043.jpeg

Deary me

This is the Guardian from back on 18th May

Going to school and sitting exams has been feasible I’m the EU but this sociopath tells us it just wasn’t feasible in Scotland

All while he enjoyed his full pay lockdown holiday. Totally selfish. 

Schools reopening has not triggered rise in Covid-19 cases, EU ministers told

Twenty countries have ensured that pupils leaving secondary school have been able to take examinations albeit in amended formats.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/18/french-minister-tells-of-risks-of-missing-school-as-more-pupils-return-covid-19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

@bazil85

new paper from Loughborough University which concludes that over half the excess deaths during lockdown have been as a result of the unintended consequences of the lockdown policy itself rather than Covid.

It states test the lockdown has increased mortality 

Yet more scientific evidence that lockdown has been lethal.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=149097083081121104112089098121114091104014059082060018071002088023117019118119006064117119051059021051011087111011117012089025020070011051015028001000074029111127084042076098095005101099121087031084095119064126098026123012107022003095104123124126094&EXT=pdf

 

Like with anything of this nature, you'll always find people with views and supposed "conclusions" on either side. You have been guilty many times of using "will" instead of "could" on many occasions. We've agreed the evidence isn't fully available and most say it wont be for a long-time. As such these claims are unfounded. 

What we do know is lockdown saved lives given the known nature of the virus. IMO it was absolutely correct not to gamble with human life during a pandemic, we know your preference would have been to protect the economy and have human life as a secondary consideration. 

regarding the specific paper, I am not downloading an signing up for an account to read it, a quick google shows opposing views, it isn't an argument on those views existing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

You’ve tied yourself up in knots with that reply, more or less ignoring what I said and making an irrelevant reply. 
 

One more time. 

The view I held at day 1 was that there wasn’t enough evidence to take the actions we were taking and the evidence that was there - from Italy, suggested that the actions we were taking were wrong. 
 

And all the evidence is now in. The pandemic is over. And it verifies that the actions we took were wrong.

You have concluded zero people have been saved by a lockdown, not one, there isn't a single person alive today that wouldn't have been alive if there had been absolutely no lockdown. You've held a negative view from day one on the lockdown and you admitting there "wasn't enough evidence" also means you have to accept there wasn't "enough evidence" to conclude the lockdown was the wrong call.

There would have had to be evidence in early March that was 100% conclusive a lockdown wasn't right, that's completely unfounded. You just didn't want your summer impacted. 

The evidence is not all in, the pandemic is not over and lockdown has saved lives. Expert advice is still on the side of lockdown as Aberdeen proves. You have yet again been shown that the current state points to you being wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Slarti said:

And yet you post all the, ahem, "facts" you have. emoji38.png

f**king priceless.

 

The lockdown saved more than zero people's life, that is fact. 

If I roll a dice 10,000 times, it WILL land on six on some of those occasions, that is fact. 

As I have said, you use pedantic techniques to argue and it isn't effective. yOu DoN't KnOw FoR sUrE lOcKdOwN sAvEd OnE oR mOrE lIvEs. 

Aye no bother lol. 

21 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I will happy to engage with you again when you start showing signs of listening to what others are saying.

So "bazil" this thread to death if you want but you won't be doing it with me.

For the sake of my own sanity you can enjoy the magnificent view from my ignore list for a while.

Always been a choice you could make, well done on taking matters into your own hands. (posted because from previous experience, I don't last there very long and there is a desire from Oaks to engage with me) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The lockdown saved more than zero people's life, that is fact. 
If I roll a dice 10,000 times, it WILL land on six on some of those occasions, that is fact. 


Neither of those things are "fact", they are assumptions based on a logical fallacy, the Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a situation where a particular something won't happen, does not mean that that particular something won't happen.

In your example, I assume that you would agree that there is a chance that all 10,000 throws will result in getting a 6. If you agree to that then you have to agree that it is possible that no 6s will result as every throw will have only one chance in six of being a 6, five chances in six of not being a 6. Every throw, it would be over 83% in favour of it not being a 6. Every throw is an independent event. If you throw 10 ones in a row, the odds of throwing a 1 on the next throw is still 1 in 6, it is not conditional on the previous throws.

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand probability, or even what probability demonstrates. Go on, argue with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Neither of those things are "fact", they are assumptions based on a logical fallacy, the Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a situation where a particular something won't happen, does not mean that that particular something won't happen.

In your example, I assume that you would agree that there is a chance that all 10,000 throws will result in getting a 6. If you agree to that then you have to agree that it is possible that no 6s will result as every throw will have only one chance in six of being a 6, five chances in six of not being a 6. Every throw, it would be over 83% in favour of it not being a 6. Every throw is an independent event. If you throw 10 ones in a row, the odds of throwing a 1 on the next throw is still 1 in 6, it is not conditional on the previous throws.

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand probability, or even what probability demonstrates. Go on, argue with me.

 

And you prove my point, going to the pedantic over the semantics of a statement. You've always done it (another good example of what you do here would be "always? I didn't do it when I was a baby). It is one of your very few techniques to argue with people you have a pre-held vendetta against. 

Regarding probability, on the contrary, all I am doing is proving a point on how pedantic you are. It has nothing to do with the examples themselves, it's how you get bogged down on semantics. We have spend days of our lives on this before. To deal with you, I would have to breakdown every single thing I say because the nature of a fan forum, you can be pedantic about almost anything if you choose to be (which you do). 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

3 countries all praised for locking down in April but, lo and behold, now that they’ve all reached their winter, deaths are in the rise. 
 

Lockdowns, social distancing, masks, whatever, makes no difference. All King Canute stuff.

 

B096EA17-ADC4-4DA3-9321-89C0CC07488B.jpeg

This view is contradicted in multiple countries/ areas as I have shown you. 

5 minutes ago, antrin said:

You must get over your paranoia.   It really isn't about you.

It's about your duff debating skills.

I don't think it's a massive coincidence, maybe more a case of deflection from you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I don't think it's a massive coincidence, maybe more a case of deflection from you? 

No. I don't imagine vendettas against me in a wee online fitba forum debate.

Although, last time I posted in here your good self, TPAFKATS and insanitee could have been considered to be a vendetta as "you all ganged up" me.... whine, whine, whine...

But I'm not a paranoid baby.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

No. I don't imagine vendettas against me in a wee online fitba forum debate.

Although, last time I posted in here your good self, TPAFKATS and insanitee could have been considered to be a vendetta as "you all ganged up" me.... whine, whine, whine...

But I'm not a paranoid baby.  :)

I disagree, for a long time now I know with relative accuracy what's coming when i see your name pop-up on my notifications. That's been across multiple subjects. Somethings gotta give... "word" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For an even longer time now, I have known that you don't debate - you simply post slabs of your 'thought', raging against a world that dare question your insights and genius.

And I know that it's never about debate for you. It's simply pig-headedness, to which my functional answer is...

word.

 

 

Suck it up, again.  :)

 

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, antrin said:

For an even longer time now, I have known that you don't debate - you simply post slabs of your 'thought', raging against a world that dare question your insights and genius.

And I know that it's never about debate for you. It's simply pig-headedness, to which my functional answer is...

word.

Suck it up, again.  :)

 

Do you think not quoting me will stop me responding or something along those lines?

Your view is one of a person that can't accept a debate is happening if that debate doesn't end with the person coming over to your side. If I don't do that, I don't debate and I just rage against other views. It's just categorically not true, I welcome other opinions it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

What I don't welcome is someone that will always shift their own comments on a discussion forum to make sure it can provoke an argument with me. You, oaks and Sarti are great examples of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



And you prove my point, going to the pedantic over the semantics of a statement. You've always done it (another good example of what you do here would be "always? I didn't do it when I was a baby). It is one of your very few techniques to argue with people you have a pre-held vendetta against. 
Regarding probability, on the contrary, all I am doing is proving a point on how pedantic you are. It has nothing to do with the examples themselves, it's how you get bogged down on semantics. We have spend days of our lives on this before. To deal with you, I would have to breakdown every single thing I say because the nature of a fan forum, you can be pedantic about almost anything if you choose to be (which you do). 


Examples are only worthwhile if they accurately reflect the situation they are an example for.

Your extremely poor grasp of basic probability has led you to believe that your example was a good one, it wasn't, especially as you claim that throwing at least one 6 in 10,000 throws is a fact, it isn't a fact.

You could stop all this by just admitting that YOU THINK that these things are the most likely scenario, rather than claiming that they are fact/evidence/conclusion. People can still disagree with you but it would just be opinion against opinion, not opinion against baseless conclusions.

Bogged down in semantics regarding mathematics? Now you're being ridiculous. Mathematics is all about accuracy, there is no such thing as semantics in mathematics. More evidence that you haven't got a clue.

You've posted recently that there isn't enough evidence for a conclusion to be drawn by someone else, yet you think there is enough for you to state your opinion as fact. Even if you turn out to be 100% correct, you are still wrong to claim these things as fact with the evidence available just now.

Now, can you provide sufficient evidence to back up ANY of your "facts"? I won't hold my breath as you will no doubt deflect as usual - and claim that you're not deflecting - and claim that everyone else is - and ...

All I have done is point out that you do not have enough evidence to claim your points as "fact". All you have to do to counter my point is supply sufficient evidence.

FYI, I haven't spent days of my life on this before as your flawed logic "jumps right out of the screen" and takes very little thought to counter. You've obviously spent days, or at least you claim to have done. It's not important to the discussion, so I'll take your word for it. You really should find a more productive hobby, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...