Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 20 hours ago, faraway saint said: Todays number 263, even after the data collectors having a few days doing feck all, the number is considerably down on last weeks highs of over 300. Still holding onto my view things are flattening out. Certainly making the 80,000/100,000/120,000 figures look highly "unreasonable" There's a flaw in your thinking - these figures were based on trends, in response to these trends restrictions were tightened and are now being tightened further, without these changes the figures quoted might very well have been "reasonable". I will no doubt have to point this out to you in a couple of months when you are crowing about being correct all along. 20 hours ago, faraway saint said: Still very low numbers (deaths) which are approx 2% of the worst numbers back in the early days although the cases have risen. The report uses the Bazil approach, quoting as big a number as they can for dramatic effect (Typical BBC approach since this started) but when you look at the details it's not as frightening as the headline makes out. They do stress they are pinning hopes on the willingness of the public to get it back under control. Just like you always chose the low one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Kachinnnnng! Quote Tory-linked firm involved in testing failure awarded new £347m Covid contract Critics raised further concerns about a separate revelation that the Conservative MP Owen Paterson, who is paid £100,000 a year to act as a consultant for Randox, was party to a call between the company and James Bethell, the health minister responsible for coronavirus testing supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Fascist Cnuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Saint Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Well said Charles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: There's a flaw in your thinking - these figures were based on trends, in response to these trends restrictions were tightened and are now being tightened further, without these changes the figures quoted might very well have been "reasonable". I will no doubt have to point this out to you in a couple of months when you are crowing about being correct all along. Just like you always chose the low one. Doh! That's precisely WHY they were nonsense and only a fool would have thought they were "reasonable". Jeezo. I never chose ANY number, I just laugh at the fools who post them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: There's a flaw in your thinking - these figures were based on trends, in response to these trends restrictions were tightened and are now being tightened further, without these changes the figures quoted might very well have been "reasonable". I will no doubt have to point this out to you in a couple of months when you are crowing about being correct all along. What new restrictions do you think have had such an impact that without them we'd have gone from 263 deaths per day to nearly 4000 per day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, oaksoft said: What new restrictions do you think have had such an impact that without them we'd have gone from 263 deaths per day to nearly 4000 per day? Question asked today - 263 deaths per day Question asked tomorrow - 295 deaths per day Question asked last Wednesday - 216 deaths per day Question asked the Wednesday before - 143 deaths per day I continue to hope the penny drops regarding increasing trends for some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Another bad day in the death numbers yet the cases continue to even out/drop. With the delay between cases/deaths I'd hope the deaths start to follow the same trend in a couple of weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 9 minutes ago, oaksoft said: What new restrictions do you think have had such an impact that without them we'd have gone from 263 deaths per day to nearly 4000 per day? 4,000 per day, are you now accepting this is a "reasonable worst case scenario" - that's a change from last week when you were part of the BigBadBaz pile-on? Anyway it's a bit rich coming from the guy who said this exactly one month ago on October 4th... Quote Cases are obviously rising but UK deaths are at about 50-60 per day and flat-lining over the last week. Flat-lining - my arse, as I said at the time. ********************* Anyway to answer your question if we had followed SAGEs advice on September 21 which was not leaked until mid-October (after our spat ) then in all likelihood the restrictions required would have been less severe and over a shorter period. You're asking the wrong question, the answer was to make the correct decision at the correct time, like the NI, Scottish & Welsh governments did even although they were hampered financially by being tied to BJs complacent pandering to the gammon hordes down south. As an afterthought, will you be joining Nigel Farage's new anti-lockdown party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 1 hour ago, faraway saint said: Doh! That's precisely WHY they were nonsense and only a fool would have thought they were "reasonable". Jeezo. I never chose ANY number, I just laugh at the fools who post them. Pants on fire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 Just now, Bud the Baker said: Pants on fire! I suggest you show me as I have refrained from predicting death numbers, I tend to use the facts that you like/dislike whenever it suits you and your never ending political agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 1 minute ago, faraway saint said: I suggest you show me as I have refrained from predicting death numbers, I tend to use the facts that you like/dislike whenever it suits you and your never ending political agenda. Pants on fire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, faraway saint said: I suggest you show me as I have refrained from predicting death numbers, I tend to use the facts that you like/dislike whenever it suits you and your never ending political agenda. The facts are deaths continue to rise week on week at an alarming rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 I think I heard Ross County are to be allowed to have some fans in attendance this Friday, 300 was mentioned? Good, not before time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: 4,000 per day, are you now accepting this is a "reasonable worst case scenario" No. I obviously was not saying that at all. My question was pretty clear. What restriction are YOU claiming has stopped us going from 263 deaths per day to 4000 or whatever huge daily number you choose to mention? I'm not getting into any nonsense about whether 263 represents a huge number of daily deaths compared to 50-60. It's an insignificant number in comparison with other daily death causes. Stop being a drama queen. I have to say, that it's pretty disgusting to see you joining the forum ghoul in taking immense pleasure in seeing more daily deaths so that you can gloat over "winning" an internet argument. What the hell is wrong with you people? Edited November 4, 2020 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: Pants on fire! You are wrong. FS didn't make a prediction of any numbers. He may be a bellend at times, but he's got you on that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, oaksoft said: You are wrong. FS didn't make a prediction of any numbers. He may be a bellend at times, but he's got you on that point. I'm not getting into a debate on sophistry he's made his opinion very clear - his pants are clearly on fire. 10 minutes ago, oaksoft said: No. I obviously was not saying that at all. My question was pretty clear. What restriction are YOU claiming has stopped us going from 263 deaths per day to 4000 or whatever huge daily number you choose to mention? I'm not getting into any nonsense about whether 263 represents a huge number of daily deaths compared to 50-60. It's an insignificant number in comparison with other daily death causes. Stop being a drama queen. And I maintain it was an irrelevant question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 9 minutes ago, oaksoft said: No. I obviously was not saying that at all. My question was pretty clear. What restriction are YOU claiming has stopped us going from 263 deaths per day to 4000 or whatever huge daily number you choose to mention? I'm not getting into any nonsense about whether 263 represents a huge number of daily deaths compared to 50-60. It's an insignificant number in comparison with other daily death causes. Stop being a drama queen. I have to say, that it's pretty disgusting to see you joining the forum ghoul in taking immense pleasure in seeing more daily deaths so that you can gloat over "winning" an internet argument. What the hell is wrong with you people? This simply isn't happening, claiming I'm taking any pleasure at all in these increasing death numbers is pathetic. This is a summary of the situation as it is. Me: I think there will be significantly large numbers of deaths between now and the end of the year, my prediction is we'll go over 80,000 by second week reporting in January. FS: Haha that's nonsense, you're a fool, anyone that believes that is completely wrong, you' can't think for yourself Couple of weeks later as deaths continue to rise on a trajectory that would have my prediction come to pass. Me: Cases continue to rise at an alarming rate, if these trends continue, we will hit my prediction. FS/ Oaks: OMG you're taking pleasure in rising cases! You're desperate for people to die! I'm going to put you on ignore as a statement yet continue to get upset over your predictions because the thought of me having to admit I may have been wrong is unbearable, I'll need to find a deflection technique. The reality... I'm just pointing out the increasing trends are still going up at an alarming rate as I predicted. You really need to educate yourself on what pleasure and enjoyment is, must come from years of being completely miserable on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 17 minutes ago, oaksoft said: You are wrong. FS didn't make a prediction of any numbers. He may be a bellend at times, but he's got you on that point. He made a prediction it wouldn't be nearly as high as 80,000. What's that famous BAWA expression? Beep beep beep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bazil85 said: He made a prediction it wouldn't be nearly as high as 80,000. What's that famous BAWA expression? Beep beep beep So he's pants on fire squared - he makes so many posts it's unsurprising he loses track of what he says at times! Edited November 4, 2020 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said: So he's pants on fire squared - unsurprising! Desperation, so pleasing, especially taking solace with the forum simpleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 12 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: So he's pants on fire squared - he makes so many posts it's unsurprising he loses track of what he says at times! Yeah absolutely, this was always going to be along the lines of the coping mechanism (no surprise from Oakster as well, we all know he's a bit of an emotional chap). To think anyone would want to be right on the higher scale of people dying is not only unfounded, it is vile. Absolute no shame and this will be his tagline at the end of the year no doubt instead of just being a bigger person, accepting he was wrong & apologising for some of the comments aimed on BAWA. 😪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 4, 2020 Report Share Posted November 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said: I'm not getting into a debate on sophistry he's made his opinion very clear - his pants are clearly on fire. And I maintain it was an irrelevant question. OK so you are happy to claim that without the restrictions deaths would have been massively higher but you are not so happy when it comes to explaining which of the new restrictions is preventing that massive surge. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 5, 2020 Report Share Posted November 5, 2020 6 hours ago, oaksoft said: OK so you are happy to claim that without the restrictions deaths would have been massively higher but you are not so happy when it comes to explaining which of the new restrictions is preventing that massive surge. Fair enough. Nope, I'm saying, yet again, it's a matter of timing and that if the current restrictions had been brought in when SAGE recommended on Sep 21 when the rolling 7 day average for cases was still under 1000 (now over 20,000 when BJs lockdown starts) and deaths 22 (now over 300) then we wouldn't be in the current mess. Fairy Nuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.