Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I suppose it sort of makes sense with the Dyson effort because they just have to switch to blow.
Hope it works.
The self employed will have to adjust in future and get a bit closer to the NI and paye system.It has always been a bit unwritten that you can limit your contributions somewhat as self employed in the building trade and others but a big part of the economy. Again this may close a few gaps

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I am not trying to do anything of the sort.

The UK currently has a bad death rate. It is worth thinking about why. Lets hope it turns out to be a data collection thing in the end but the only time we can do something about it if it's a strategy thing is now. Why have needless deaths just to protect Tory image?

On a wider note I am baffled at why you are so keen to protect the tories on this? I get that if you say nothing now you have no failed analysis that can be brought up later but I am happy to stick my neck out and say the UKG are f***ing this up.

I'm happy stick my neck out and say you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about as your manipulation of incomplete statistics show time and time again. Your insistence on ignoring any variable that doesn't suit your agenda is frankly ridiculous.

Say what you like but Mac is spot on that GB&NI are headed for the top of the table in terms of death per capita for anywhere outside Asia & Iran (where data can't be trusted).

So. in absence of any actual evidence, we ignore Asia (all of it?) and Iran?

[navyblueshorts]

Super you are such a prick.

Couple of things:

1. Don't be insulting to that extent.
   
2. I've warned you before. Last time: stop circumventing the swear filter.
   

[navyblueshorts]

Kwini

It is madness, for some reason (demographic, health of population, UKG response..) the UK is getting hammered by this. Some of the worst deaths per capita in Europe, the world even)


Davie here is table that shows how badly the UK is doing when you rank the European countries based on death rate per million.



https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

So any chance of an apology from everyone who foolishly piled on to me.

You will see a full data set and the highlighted section shows I did not single out any particular factor.  I doubt very much whether any of those who failed to comprehend my post on this will have the intellectual honesty to offer that apology.

Nope; nothing to apologise for. Moving on...

[navyblueshorts]

Super you are such a prick.

Do you want your toys back?

Do you want to take supers dick out of your mouth?

Give you a free hit re. 'd!ck'. Seriously though, you circumvent the filter one more time after these warning and you'll be on an enforced vacation.

[navyblueshorts]

Ben

No, nothing to do with the government. What could the people who run the country actually be expected to do about it?

There you go. You bias isn't a good look.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I am not trying to do anything of the sort.

The UK currently has a bad death rate. It is worth thinking about why. Lets hope it turns out to be a data collection thing in the end but the only time we can do something about it if it's a strategy thing is now. Why have needless deaths just to protect Tory image?

On a wider note I am baffled at why you are so keen to protect the tories on this? I get that if you say nothing now you have no failed analysis that can be brought up later but I am happy to stick my neck out and say the UKG are f***ing this up.

I'm happy stick my neck out and say you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about as your manipulation of incomplete statistics show time and time again. Your insistence on ignoring any variable that doesn't suit your agenda is frankly ridiculous.

Say what you like but Mac is spot on that GB&NI are headed for the top of the table in terms of death per capita for anywhere outside Asia & Iran (where data can't be trusted).

That wasn't his argument. He was arguing that our death rate  is because of government indifference and inaction.

It might well be that the UK ends up with the worst figures ( seems unlikely though given that death rates would need to more than double to overtake Spain) but the point is that there is a great deal more at play than simply government policy and Mac sought to ignore and hide that.

I reckon that we'll give Spain a run for its money the way things are going. (Though ben is right about Belgium - good lord!)
Not really sure how one accounts for that if not for a delayed reaction and a consistently underfunded NHS, both of which seem to be government "policy" - same in the US of course.

Long-term UKG NHS funding is definitely something to be looked at, but they could have a lot more money and it wouldn't necessarily have been spent on vents etc. Certainly, the Tories have some answering to do on that front, but I seriously doubt they'd be able to argue for not increasing funding in light of this. Serious conversations needed - Labour banged on about increased funding but they were never honest enough to level w/ the public re. the likely increased cost to the average tax payer.

[navyblueshorts]

In better news, our "positive" tests only yielded 4 new cases yesterday, barely 0.5%, and only about 5% more over the past three days. Statistically improbable but great news for us.

Seriously? Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

[navyblueshorts]

The reality is the figures are even worse than appear when comparing UK and Ireland figures. Uk isn't including nursing home deaths, I think almost have of Irelands deaths have occurred in nursing homes.

Ireland locked down quicker after seeing what was happening in Europe while Boris as per usual, being the class clown and bragging about shaking hands with people in virus stricken hospitals.

The UK governments response was initially driven by herd immunity¹ and didn't take the threat very seriously. As a result thousands of extra deaths. Very simple explanation! The governments response has been pathetic. The UK's elderly population have been subjected to a scientific experiment², and people are correct to be unhappy about this.

¹ No, it wasn't.
² No, they haven't.

[navyblueshorts]

Skiddy

You make a sound case and ask the pertinent questions but good luck getting through to this lot.

Spit the dummy out. Great approach to an argument.

[navyblueshorts]

Super

What you fail to recognise is that I have the far superior skills of deduction and data interpretation. If you had realised this you would know how ridiculous your bleating on about other factors sounds.

Mature. Like it.

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1250097258114187264?s=19

Gov trying to manipulate figures.

[Soul Requiem]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1250097258114187264?s=19

Gov trying to manipulate figures.

'Deaths are reasonably accurate, but international reporting lags are unclear, so may not be comparing like for like.' and 'Reporting of Uk deaths may lag up to several days.' Did you read the graph?

[beninho]

"May not" should be are not. If you cant compare like for like why compare?

Is it just to look below France on the chart?

[navyblueshorts]

[beninho]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

[navyblueshorts]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

[kwinigolfer]

In better news, our "positive" tests only yielded 4 new cases yesterday, barely 0.5%, and only about 5% more over the past three days. Statistically improbable but great news for us.

Seriously? Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

Would you rather characterise it as bad news?

We were in deep sh1t there for a while and our (Republican) Governor, who amazingly I've always supported, has been brilliant in getting the State on board with isolating, not just people, but also problem areas.
Difficult to see such decisiveness across the lake.
Perhaps we'll go belly up in a week, but I doubt it. And we'll still be "on planet Earth".

[super_realist]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1250097258114187264?s=19

Gov trying to manipulate figures.

How is it trying to manipulate? They've always been transparent that it didn't include those deaths in care homes and wider communities.
Dealing with just hospital deaths means you get a consistent set of figures and not one where statistics are coming in slowly and erratically . We get you hate the government, but be honest for a change, they aren't hiding anything and they aren't trying to mislead anyone.
The only question I would have is why are these people in care homes who are ill with the virus  not presenting at hospital instead of being treated by some bum wiper on minimum wage?

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1250097258114187264?s=19

Gov trying to manipulate figures.

How is it trying to manipulate? They've always been transparent that it didn't include those deaths in care homes and wider communities.
Dealing with just hospital deaths means you get a consistent set of figures and not one where statistics are coming in slowly and erratically . We get you hate the government, but be honest for a change, they aren't hiding anything and they aren't trying to mislead anyone.
The only question I would have is why are these people in care homes who are ill with the virus  not presenting at hospital instead of being treated by some bum wiper on minimum wage?

If Mr Joe Public looked at that chart would they think that we are below France and that figures would be based on similar information?

[super_realist]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1250097258114187264?s=19

Gov trying to manipulate figures.

How is it trying to manipulate? They've always been transparent that it didn't include those deaths in care homes and wider communities.
Dealing with just hospital deaths means you get a consistent set of figures and not one where statistics are coming in slowly and erratically . We get you hate the government, but be honest for a change, they aren't hiding anything and they aren't trying to mislead anyone.
The only question I would have is why are these people in care homes who are ill with the virus  not presenting at hospital instead of being treated by some bum wiper on minimum wage?

If Mr Joe Public looked at that chart would they think that we are below France and that figures would be based on similar information?

You are assuming that Joe Public lacks scepticism, which I'll agree they probably do to a certain degree.  Anyone with half a brain would realise that comparing two countries with vastly different factors which affect how badly they will be impacted is not all that useful. Also,  only a complete moron would think that every country shares the same reporting method and can be directly compared.
The important thing to consider in these figures is to show how deaths and new infections are reducing/reaching a plateau.

It's actually pretty irrelevant where we are on any table, what matters is if the measures that have been put in place are getting results, because differences in death rate are a function of dozens of different factors. Every country has a unique set of circumstances which might protect them, or expose them to more deaths. The good thing is that it does seem to be working even if for a variety of different reasons we are worse than other countries.

[beninho]

Its probably not irrelevant to the government. They would want us as far down the chart as possible, for obvious reasons which is why they used Frances total deaths against our hospital deaths. I saw on that twitter thread that france do provide breakdowns of both.

I think this is where the keys not make it political is showing it is political.

[Soul Requiem]

Yet the graph itself explains all that

[super_realist]

Its probably not irrelevant to the government. They would want us as far down the chart as possible, for obvious reasons  which is why they used Frances total deaths against our hospital deaths. I saw on that twitter thread that france do provide breakdowns of both.

I think this is where the keys not make it political is showing it is political.

Jesus, the government didn't make those tables. They are independent. Have you ever heard the term "indicative" before? That's why they use the table. Furthermore, Britain is not the only country not to be using these deaths in care homes and the community yet they are using the same tables as those countries that are reporting all deaths. Are they doing it for political reasons? You sound like you are one step away from a tin foil hat because everything the government does, you seem to think is being done for subterfuge, at least JAS can acknowledge the good the government have done in this whole crisis, but you can't bring yourself to see anything positive in their action, and have used total hindsight to justify how you think it ought to have been done.

I have to wonder why you are so adamant in keeping this going. Why can't you just accept that there are vast differences in death rates and very good reasons for that to be the case.

Would you rather get your figures from Diane Flabbot?

[beninho]

How is a graph provided by the Cabinet Office not a political or government slide?

I know we are not the only ones not using care homes or other deaths in our figures. But the French figures used, include those figures. Who ever created the chart didnt remove those figures to get a comparitive figure.

You cant compare different things and use the same graph, without some form of clarification m, which there isn't.

How, are you not seeing this as an attempt to mislead the general public into thinking the country is doing better then its neighbours.

Look at it through the eyes of a sun, mail or Express reader.

[super_realist]

How is a graph provided by the Cabinet Office not a political or government slide?

I know we are not the only ones not using care homes or other deaths in our figures. But the French figures used, include those figures. Who ever created the chart didnt remove those figures to get a comparitive figure.

You cant compare different things and use the same graph, without some form of clarification m, which there isn't.

How, are you not seeing this as an attempt to mislead the general public into thinking the country is doing better then its neighbours.

Look at it through the eyes of a sun, mail or Express reader.

The graphs that the media and public are using is not a cabinet office supplied one. Nothing is being hidden from the public. You can JFGI a million different graphs and pieces of information. The government is not controlling information as we live in a time when there is more access to more information, more readily than at any point in history.

As I've said repeatedly now, what sort of idiot thinks you can make a comparison between one country and its neighbours without realising there are dozens of reasons as to why these figures would be wildly different? Can you not see that comparing death rates of different countries has a lot more to it than whether you remove the care home dead or not?

[Soul Requiem]

How is a graph provided by the Cabinet Office not a political or government slide?

I know we are not the only ones not using care homes or other deaths in our figures. But the French figures used, include those figures. Who ever created the chart didnt remove those figures to get a comparitive figure.

You cant compare different things and use the same graph, without some form of clarification m, which there isn't.

How, are you not seeing this as an attempt to mislead the general public into thinking the country is doing better then its neighbours.

Look at it through the eyes of a sun, mail or Express reader.

How are you misreading a graph so badly?

[beninho]

I would never trust either of you to on statistics then.

On top of that, I wish I was a naive with regards to trust in the government and the people behind the government.

[super_realist]

I would never trust either of you to on statistics then.

On top of that, I wish I was a naive with regards to trust in the government and the people behind the government.

The tables don't take dozens of differing factors into consideration, hence why they should only be viewed in an indicative fashion to give a general trend. Why aren't you moaning about them not taking into account all those other factors?

You are mistaking our inherent scepticism in the tables and why they shouldn't be taken literally with support for the government decision making, and to think Mac makes some crazy points. You are taking one small point, leaping to the conclusion that it's a cover up and ignoring all the other factors which make one country drastically different to another, that's why you're naïve.

[Pal Joey]

I would never trust either of you to on statistics then.

On top of that, I wish I was a naive with regards to trust in the government and the people behind the government.

Maybe Trump read this article?

Caught in the Redact:

[beninho]

I'm not going to bang on much more, and it seems to be dragged into something I'm not even talking about. I will ask 2 questions.

1. Do you think the government has sign off on any slides or graphs used at its daily briefings?

2. Do you think a global death comparison should be based on like for like or as close as possible?

3. Do you think the comparison is like for like?

I added a 3rd q.

[beninho]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

[super_realist]

I'm not going to bang on much more, and it seems to be dragged into something I'm not even talking about. I will ask 2 questions.

1. Do you think the government has sign off on any slides or graphs used at its daily briefings?

2. Do you think a global death comparison should be based on like for like or as close as possible?

3. Do you think the comparison is like for like?

I added a 3rd q.

1. I'm sure they do have sign off. The question is whether they are/were aware that France was including care home deaths at the time the tables were made. Neither of us is in a position to say whether they knew or not. However, the tables don't take into consideration a lot of highly important factors, so why are you only focussing on care home deaths when factors like population density could have an even greater influence?

2. I think a global like for like table is effectively useless as I've said about 50 times now each country has many different factors and circumstances which can explain why one is significantly higher or lower than an near neighbour.

3. No, the comparison is not like for like, not even effing close and is why we shouldn't be paying them too much attention, even if you did take into account care home deaths in every country. Do you?
THe only figure that matters is our own death rate and how long that is taking to go down, comparisons at this stage do nothing to improve the situation.

[Soul Requiem]

There's a counter factor for France anyway, unlike Italy they aren't testing for Coronavirus post mortem.

[super_realist]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

Saudi's are pretty good at investment, I think that's a bit harsh Beninho

[beninho]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

Saudi's are pretty good at investment, I think that's a bit harsh Beninho

At some point, fans must think about more than money.

[super_realist]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

Saudi's are pretty good at investment, I think that's a bit harsh Beninho

At some point, fans must think about more than money.

Realistically they're not a big team and are just there to make up numbers. I think I saw something that in the last 20 years their average positon has been something like 14th and zero trophies.
Their fans can do nothing but pipe dream. They're not suddenly going to become a force.

[beninho]

What was Man Citys standing before Abu Dgabi got involved?

I still recall my team going the league double over them!

[super_realist]

Cant see it, Newcastle is not a place top players would want to live.

[JAS]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

Saudi's are pretty good at investment, I think that's a bit harsh Beninho

At some point, fans must think about more than money.

Realistically they're not a big team and are just there to make up numbers. I think I saw something that in the last 20 years their average positon has been something like 14th and zero trophies.
Their fans can do nothing but pipe dream. They're not suddenly going to become a force.

Pre Jack Walker you would have said the same about Blackburn Rovers, ok you’d never call Blackburn a big club, but they did buy success for a bit. More recently pre Abramovich you would have said the same of Chelsea, same principle re Man City pre their money laundering oligarch. Money DOES talk and the Saudis if they took it on could conceivably turn them into a “big club” They certainly wouldn’t have to work that hard to better Ashley, there is one parasite of the worst kind in the modern age.

[navyblueshorts]

In better news, our "positive" tests only yielded 4 new cases yesterday, barely 0.5%, and only about 5% more over the past three days. Statistically improbable but great news for us.

Seriously? Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

Would you rather characterise it as bad news?

We were in deep sh1t there for a while and our (Republican) Governor, who amazingly I've always supported, has been brilliant in getting the State on board with isolating, not just people, but also problem areas.
Difficult to see such decisiveness across the lake.
Perhaps we'll go belly up in a week, but I doubt it. And we'll still be "on planet Earth".

Nah; it's good. Wasn't sure if you were referring to VT or wider U.S.

[beninho]

I suppose in football if you are going to invest, you dont want a big club, but a club with decent infrastructure and a good base. Like Citeh and to be fair Newcastle. Good stadium and one team town. Or you create a club like RB Leipzeig. Didn't even exist before the rb money came in.

Could Newcastle be a massive club, obviously. Could the Saudis do it, maybe. Would I want them owning my club, probably not. But we have an American Republican from NOLA.

[navyblueshorts]

Mike Ashley or Saudis?

Neither sounds good!

Lack of investment from one. Murdering journalists and beheadings from the other. It's a toss up.

Saudi's are pretty good at investment, I think that's a bit harsh Beninho

At some point, fans must think about more than money.

Really? Why start now? All they care about is their lot winning and being able to brag about it to local rivals.

[super_realist]

The price of players has increased so much in recent years that I reckon you'd need a billion quid to get Newcastle capable of winning the league. No one is going to put that much money in.

[beninho]

The amount of money needed will now depend on how much of a hit the owners personal wealth is taking at the moment. I hope the days of stupid fees and wages takes a back seat for a long while.

[JAS]

The price of players has increased so much in recent years that I reckon you'd need a billion quid to get Newcastle capable of winning the league. No one is going to put that much money in.

You also need the right manager, with that you then might not need as much money. Currently there’s probably only a handful of established names that you could go to. Or...you could be really lucky or really astute and find a circa 1980 Fergie or a circa 2002 Mourinho etc.

[super_realist]

Just can't see it. The Saudi money is from their sovereign wealth fund. They won't want to spunk much of that.
I know Leicester won the league, but this would be lightning striking twice.

[westisbest]

What do people base big clubs on?

I would say big clubs obviously have money to spend. Big stadium. Big fan base. Top training facilities even. Trophies won, history. To name a few things.

Coupe of mates of mine who are Bournemouth fans say they are a big club. I wouldn’t agree with that. Think they have money, but not much of the rest above.

My take on it anyway.

[super_realist]

To me it means you are winning or contending for major honours. I don't think it matters how big your fan base is because Celtic and Rangers have thousands of fans but are not much more than feeder clubs for Southampton in the grand scheme of things.

[westisbest]

Liverpool and Man Utd massive clubs in the prem.
Europe. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern. Ajax.

Big clubs in the prem.
Arsenal spurs Chelsea Man City Villa Everton.

[Soul Requiem]

Liverpool and Man Utd massive clubs in the prem.
Europe. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern. Ajax.

Big clubs in the prem.
Arsenal spurs Chelsea Man City Villa Everton.

I think that's placing too much emphasis on historical success, Ajax aren't really a significant player in European football any more and haven't been for the best part of 20 years now. I wouldn't class either Villa or Everton as a big club and think it's pushing it somewhat for Spurs too. Chelsea and City are nothing more than a rich mans play thing for instance.

Ajax back in the 90's were a joy to watch and i'd say a major reason why the Champions League became so popular in the tailend of the decade, you had a team who could actually play beautiful football instead of the attritional play of AC Milan. That midfield of Seedord, Davids and Litmanen had it all while the defence was pretty damn good too. A lot of people have forgotten how important Van Gaal was for the future of football back then.

[Sponsored content]