Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts


2 minutes ago, theknickerwetter said:

The list:

Economic Growth
  • 4.2 percent growth in the second quarter of 2018.
  • For the first time in more than a decade, growth is projected to exceed 3 percent over the calendar year.
blah blah blah

Two things.

1) Did you personally attempt to fact check ANY of this nonsense?

2) Do you know your internet usage can be and is routinely tracked and can be tied to you personally whether you use Tor or a VPN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, antrin said:

You're perfectly right that - in the wider world - it's PH Officials and experts that need to be convinced.

But I wasn't responding under some illusion that you'd posted those links on this venue because you'd thought this would be the best place such people might find it.

There was silly me, thinking that you posted it in here, so that us dreary, ordinary punters might learn something! 

 

Ah well...  :rolleyes:

 

You can learn something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antrin said:

I did.

I  learnt that the links in your post were about meta analyses, not scientific proof that masks work.

Amd worse than that, the very first key finding on page 1 states quite specifically that they need to be properly constructed and properly fitted. So we're no further ahead in our knowledge.

In other words, insaintee is yet another pseudo-expert on face masks who apparently doesn't bother reading the articles he posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2020 at 6:18 PM, antrin said:

 

 

 

That "More than zero people were saved due to lockdown in the UK, that is fact." may be debateable.  And may be a likely outcome.

However your first post above - that I point out is merely opinion - had nothing to with that. Why drag it in unless to muddy your waters?

Your petty obfuscation does you no favours.

Because it is a discussion forum, points being made progress as the forum does. The point is fact though, his aim was to lower it down to a very pedantic level and he succeeded. 

 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2020 at 3:35 PM, Slarti said:



No, we aren't in agreement. You say it's a fact, I say it's probable, IMO, that specific people have been saved but possibly at the cost of others dying.

If the odds it didn't can't be calculated, how have you managed to work out the odds that it did? It is a dichotomy, it either has or it hasn't, if you don't know the odds for one, you can't know the odds for the other. If you know the odds for one, then you know the odds for the other.

Exactly how did you determine the odds can't be calculated anyway? Another unsubstantiated claim?

You can disregard what you want, it won't make you any less wrong.

Dice! emoji38.png

Of course it boils down to that because you made the claim that it was a fact. All I want to know is how you determined it was a fact. Because you say so?

No, it's your opinion.

Again, no, it's only your opinion. Maybe you should wait for the validation study before you claim anything as fact. Even if a validation study did prove you were right, it does not mean that it is a fact just now. How do you not understand that. If we go to your dice ( emoji38.png ), if you said "it will be a six, fact" and it came up a six, that does not mean that your claim was a fact, it just means you guessed correctly.

It's not pedantic, it's reality. You are now admitting that you are claiming this is true without an assessment being done. Thanks for admitting it's only your opinion.

 

Again you double down on your pedantic argument, I have said I have no interest in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word "fact" I won't change my view on this because lockdown has saved people's lives.

You got what you wanted out of your engagement which is an argument and I am willing to continue that with you but regarding your desperation to debate if it's a point of fact or otherwise, I won't be going into that with you. My view will remain the below. If we again take the dice example, if the event is in the past, I don't need to see a validation study to know it'll be fact that at least one six was rolled lol. That's where you can't grasp you are being pedantic.  

Lockdown has saved more than zero lives in the UK, fact. No amount of moon howling will get me to move on that view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Maybe, in hindsight, The Cap'n was correct about Sweden although as ever scientific opinion is not universal :rolleyes:, what they did have going in their favour is making a decision early about social distancing and what restrictions to take and sticking to them - it was never the free for all that the PotUS has allowed in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The lead story on the virus today is closing pubs & restaurants and as a means to keep schools open, again I think this is wooly thinking by the government bracketing the two together - social distancing seems to be difficult to maintain as the evenings wear on at pubs but it's not as if people go on restaurant crawls.

I've always said we should err on the side of caution so supported the lockdown but 6 months on perhaps we are in a better position to say how we focus our prevention strategy until a vaccine is available.

Oh and FWIW I am maintaining my hygiene regime with regards to my facemasks, both Steampunk & Saints varieties...

The big problem for pubs and restaurants isn't a lack of social distancing.

It's the fact that people are eating and drinking from the same plates and glasses that others were using less than an hour previously.

I think THAT is the issue there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Because it is a discussion forum, points being made progress as the forum does. The point is fact though, his aim was to lower it down to a very pedantic level and he succeeded.   

 

 

 

So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way.

 

 

 

Again you double down on your pedantic argument, I have said I have no interest in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word "fact" I won't change my view on this because lockdown has saved people's lives. You got what you wanted out of your engagement which is an argument and I am willing to continue that with you but regarding your desperation to debate if it's a point of fact or otherwise, I won't be going into that with you. My view will remain the below. If we again take the dice example, if the event is in the past, I don't need to see a validation study to know it'll be fact that at least one six was rolled lol. That's where you can't grasp you are being pedantic.  

Lockdown has saved more than zero lives in the UK, fact. No amount of moon howling will get me to move on that view. 

 

 

So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint.

 

You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact.

 

As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time.

 

I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Slarti said:

So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way.

Yes I do, mind reading capabilities not required. It was very obvious and it's something you have done often in the past. You're very easy to read. 

Correction, me not willing to bow down to your pedantic nature has had a knock on effect, you can't accept it and have become obsessed with trying to get me to do something that I NEVER will do. I won't stoop to your tedious level. 

So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint.

You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact.

As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time.

I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown? The first part is definitely true & was the origination of your pedantry (Andy saying it has saved zero people) although if you have misunderstood my view it is understandable and we can chalk this one down to experience? 

Right now my belief is the second part is true as of today but not what I have been saying is fact. There's the third point regarding future state which I also think will show lockdown saved lives overall but that's probably a while away to validate and know the extent. 

____

I'll try simplify the reason for the example further. The dice throw was to highlight a point to show how pedantic you were being. You jumping in saying pretty much "prove it" to something like this isn't needed. If I had said something like "lockdown has factually saved millions of UK lives" sure go nuts, that is a claim that would b perfectly reasonably to question. But like the point I made, if someone rolled a dice 10,000 times (or was about to) and I said "Some of those would/ will have been a 6 fact" There is no need to go and "prove" that or for someone to get hung-up on the semantics of that sentence. It's something that would be completely rational to accept given the odds to the contrary. It's a solid analogy for the lockdown point and it highlights what many of us have seen (although probably won't admit because of yours truly) about how you argue. 

You then ramble more about the pedantic nature that I have told you several times I wont engage in. I'm afraid your only options are 

1. let it go 

2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
  1 hour ago, Slarti said:

So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way.

Yes I do, mind reading capabilities not required. It was very obvious and it's something you have done often in the past. You're very easy to read. 

You do???  Your arrogance appears to know no bounds.  I'm obviously not very easy for you to read as you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not.  

 

Correction, me not willing to bow down to your pedantic nature has had a knock on effect, you can't accept it and have become obsessed with trying to get me to do something that I NEVER will do. I won't stoop to your tedious level.

You can call it pedantic all you want, it won't make it so.  You obviously don't have a very strong command of the English language, I'll need to remember to make allowances for that.  If something is a fact, it MUST have evidence to back it up.  That you won't supply this evidence (that you indirectly claim to have by insisting that it is a fact) speaks volumes.  It's not tedious at all, it's always refreshing to know that you are in the right, you should try it sometime.  I know what it is that you will never do, supply evidence for your assertions.

 

So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint.

No comment on this?

 

You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact.

Or this?

 

As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time.

Or this?

 

I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown? The first part is definitely true & was the origination of your pedantry (Andy saying it has saved zero people) although if you have misunderstood my view it is understandable and we can chalk this one down to experience?

The first part is NOT definitely true.  It quite possibly is true, maybe even probably true, but not DEFINITELY true.  How you can’t understand this is totally beyond me.  FYI, I have not agreed with Andy, I have even told him that he talks pish.  You can call it pedantry all you want, it won’t make it true.  Just because you have no interest in accuracy, it doesn’t make someone else a pedant.

 

Right now my belief is the second part is true as of today but not what I have been saying is fact. There's the third point regarding future state which I also think will show lockdown saved lives overall but that's probably a while away to validate and know the extent.

I have no issue with anyone (even you) believing anything, the problems arise when people act on beliefs which aren’t true or when one false belief results in other false beliefs.  The future analysis is all that matters, that is when the probability will be determined about whether or not lockdown has saved lives.  What it will not do is show definitely whether anyone still alive would have died as a result on contracting the virus if not for lockdown.  Also, any reliable analysis will not be available for years to come as the knock-on effect of reduced NHS services becomes transparent.

 

I'll try simplify the reason for the example further. The dice throw was to highlight a point to show how pedantic you were being. You jumping in saying pretty much "prove it" to something like this isn't needed. If I had said something like "lockdown has factually saved millions of UK lives" sure go nuts, that is a claim that would b perfectly reasonably to question. But like the point I made, if someone rolled a dice 10,000 times (or was about to) and I said "Some of those would/ will have been a 6 fact" There is no need to go and "prove" that or for someone to get hung-up on the semantics of that sentence. It's something that would be completely rational to accept given the odds to the contrary. It's a solid analogy for the lockdown point and it highlights what many of us have seen (although probably won't admit because of yours truly) about how you argue.

You don’t need to simplify anything.  The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry.  Your example is flawed.  I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed.  There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about.  Your example also was not analogous to your claim.  Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example?  The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time.  It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws.  That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed.  The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing.  Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it?  FFS.

 

You then ramble more about the pedantic nature that I have told you several times I wont engage in. I'm afraid your only options are

1. let it go

2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification.

They are not the only two options, you can’t even get that right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

The big problem for pubs and restaurants isn't a lack of social distancing.

It's the fact that people are eating and drinking from the same plates and glasses that others were using less than an hour previously.

I think THAT is the issue there.

I daresay you're correct - I still reckon there's a difference between restaurants (I've been once since they re-opened) and with less than half the tables being used and staff wearing PPE and the sorta overcrowded scenes we've seen outside pubs (sic) on weekends.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Slarti said:

You do???  Your arrogance appears to know no bounds.  I'm obviously not very easy for you to read as you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not.  

Yes I do, based on several other examples that to me has validated this as a go to for you. If a guy is caught cheating on his wife several times, does it become fact that he's a cheater? Please try to consider pedantry if you wish to address this analogy. 

You can call it pedantic all you want, it won't make it so.  You obviously don't have a very strong command of the English language, I'll need to remember to make allowances for that.  If something is a fact, it MUST have evidence to back it up.  That you won't supply this evidence (that you indirectly claim to have by insisting that it is a fact) speaks volumes.  It's not tedious at all, it's always refreshing to know that you are in the right, you should try it sometime.  I know what it is that you will never do, supply evidence for your assertions.

At what point does it become pedantic to ask for validated evidence? 1 million dice rolls? A billion? A trillion? My view is it gets to a point that something is so obviously the case, demanding evidence becomes pedantic. That's what we seen from you when you joined this conversation. You also have previous. Again you will never change my mind on that, given I can literally show this is what you do over several topics (and at least a couple of usernames) 

No comment on this?

I have made all the comment I want on this, I made it very clear I wouldn't stoop down to your level on the semantics of words. For your awareness (again) 

1. Let it go

2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification. 

Or this?

As above

Or this?

As above

The first part is NOT definitely true.  It quite possibly is true, maybe even probably true, but not DEFINITELY true.  How you can’t understand this is totally beyond me.  FYI, I have not agreed with Andy, I have even told him that he talks pish.  You can call it pedantry all you want, it won’t make it true.  Just because you have no interest in accuracy, it doesn’t make someone else a pedant.

This is also covered by the above. 1 or 2 again. 

I have no issue with anyone (even you) believing anything, the problems arise when people act on beliefs which aren’t true or when one false belief results in other false beliefs.  The future analysis is all that matters, that is when the probability will be determined about whether or not lockdown has saved lives.  What it will not do is show definitely whether anyone still alive would have died as a result on contracting the virus if not for lockdown.  Also, any reliable analysis will not be available for years to come as the knock-on effect of reduced NHS services becomes transparent.

Jesus let it go lol. 

You don’t need to simplify anything.  The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry.  Your example is flawed.  I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed.  There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about.  Your example also was not analogous to your claim.  Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example?  The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time.  It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws.  That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed.  The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing.  Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it?  FFS.

And again

They are not the only two options, you can’t even get that right.

 I don't see it, but I'm open to you trying to introduce a third option. It won't be me lowering myself to address your semantics. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
The big problem for pubs and restaurants isn't a lack of social distancing.
It's the fact that people are eating and drinking from the same plates and glasses that others were using less than an hour previously.
I think THAT is the issue there.
It really shouldn't be an issue if the plates and glasses are properly cleaned. Given that soap and warm water was enough to kill the virus for handwashing, a dishwashing machine should be sufficient for this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
18 hours ago, oaksoft said:
The big problem for pubs and restaurants isn't a lack of social distancing.
It's the fact that people are eating and drinking from the same plates and glasses that others were using less than an hour previously.
I think THAT is the issue there.

It really shouldn't be an issue if the plates and glasses are properly cleaned. Given that soap and warm water was enough to kill the virus for handwashing, a dishwashing machine should be sufficient for this?

I wouldn't bet on that at all.

When I used to eat in restaurants and cafes, the cups and saucers were usually not completely clean and had bits stuck to them. It's a sign of a dishwasher being improperly loaded and the water and detergent doesn't get to where it needs to. You only need one lazy twat to put a pan in the wrong place and the whole load is compromised.

When our machine broke we made the decision to not get it replaced and wash and dry by hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:
18 hours ago, oaksoft said:
The big problem for pubs and restaurants isn't a lack of social distancing.
It's the fact that people are eating and drinking from the same plates and glasses that others were using less than an hour previously.
I think THAT is the issue there.

It really shouldn't be an issue if the plates and glasses are properly cleaned. Given that soap and warm water was enough to kill the virus for handwashing, a dishwashing machine should be sufficient for this?

I agree.

The water in a dishwater is way more burny than the water in which hands can do dishes.

The virus would be killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Are dishwashers mandatory in all pubs?

In any premises serving food there must either be an automatic machine which reaches above 82* for 30 seconds or 2 stage cleaning with one of the stages being bactericidal detergent, the stuff has a corrosive label on it and any prolonged contact with skin causes problems so I'd be confident any bacteria would be gone. 

Any debris in machine washed crockery is more likely due to a machine not being cleaned out sufficiently often rather than improperly loaded. Modern machines have jets above and below which rotate at a good speed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2020 at 10:52 AM, bazil85 said:
On 8/10/2020 at 2:01 AM, Slarti said:

You do???  Your arrogance appears to know no bounds.  I'm obviously not very easy for you to read as you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not.  

Yes I do, based on several other examples that to me has validated this as a go to for you. If a guy is caught cheating on his wife several times, does it become fact that he's a cheater? Please try to consider pedantry if you wish to address this analogy. 

So "you know" and "you think" at the same time?  Make your mind up.  The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me.  You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that.  I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"?

 

You can call it pedantic all you want, it won't make it so.  You obviously don't have a very strong command of the English language, I'll need to remember to make allowances for that.  If something is a fact, it MUST have evidence to back it up.  That you won't supply this evidence (that you indirectly claim to have by insisting that it is a fact) speaks volumes.  It's not tedious at all, it's always refreshing to know that you are in the right, you should try it sometime.  I know what it is that you will never do, supply evidence for your assertions.

At what point does it become pedantic to ask for validated evidence? 1 million dice rolls? A billion? A trillion? My view is it gets to a point that something is so obviously the case, demanding evidence becomes pedantic. That's what we seen from you when you joined this conversation. You also have previous. Again you will never change my mind on that, given I can literally show this is what you do over several topics (and at least a couple of usernames) 

There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence.  If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it".  As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates.  What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen.  It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen.  Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly.  As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter.  Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it.

OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username.  Go on.  Bet you don't.

And, it's "saw" not "seen".  Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you.
 

 

No comment on this?

I have made all the comment I want on this, I made it very clear I wouldn't stoop down to your level on the semantics of words. For your awareness (again) 

1. Let it go

2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification. 

Or this?

As above

Or this?

As above

The first part is NOT definitely true.  It quite possibly is true, maybe even probably true, but not DEFINITELY true.  How you can’t understand this is totally beyond me.  FYI, I have not agreed with Andy, I have even told him that he talks pish.  You can call it pedantry all you want, it won’t make it true.  Just because you have no interest in accuracy, it doesn’t make someone else a pedant.

This is also covered by the above. 1 or 2 again. 

I have no issue with anyone (even you) believing anything, the problems arise when people act on beliefs which aren’t true or when one false belief results in other false beliefs.  The future analysis is all that matters, that is when the probability will be determined about whether or not lockdown has saved lives.  What it will not do is show definitely whether anyone still alive would have died as a result on contracting the virus if not for lockdown.  Also, any reliable analysis will not be available for years to come as the knock-on effect of reduced NHS services becomes transparent.

Jesus let it go lol. 

I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus.

 

You don’t need to simplify anything.  The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry.  Your example is flawed.  I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed.  There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about.  Your example also was not analogous to your claim.  Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example?  The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time.  It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws.  That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed.  The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing.  Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it?  FFS.

And again

OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it.

 

They are not the only two options, you can’t even get that right.

 I don't see it, but I'm open to you trying to introduce a third option. It won't be me lowering myself to address your semantics. 

A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you.  That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options.  I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts.

 

 

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...