Jump to content

Kopfkino

Member
  • Post count

    3,999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Kopfkino last won the day on 1 May

Kopfkino had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,771 Excellent

About Kopfkino

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,297 profile views
  1. Literally no idea how you've come to that
  2. Being flippant was unnecessary on my part, apologies. But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. The last thing I will say on false positives, as I've just seen the most recent commentary from the ONS from it, is that the ONS's maximum possible FPR, based on their random testing, is 0.08% and that's if every single positive result they identified was false, though it could be higher than that. Given that most people getting a test in the UK are doing so because they have symptoms, the likelihood that a positive test is a genuine case is near as damn it guaranteed. Moreover, the proportion of people testing positive with no symptoms has remained stable. I know that you know that false positives is somewhat of a red herring and I also know that you know that detecting the virus at higher cycle does not necessarily mean it's not a genuine case, nor does it explain recent changes. What you rightfully did was agree with the exact details but you also end up amplifying the conclusions. The details exist to obfuscate and be seen to legitimise the conclusions but they more often than not don't support the conclusion because the conclusion was predetermined many moons ago. It particularly winds me up because I am of the mind that we need to face up to living with the virus before a vaccine comes on stream. Something along the lines of shielding the vulnerable but it's incumbent on people that think like that to show that is actually viable rather than just pretending various problems away. I recognise that so much is still uncertain and so I'm also uncertain as to whether that is the wisest move, I can't speak with the certainty that many seem to be able to. Many of the saner voices advocating for at least a robust debate on a less timid approach are drowned out by heaps of incognisant people regurgitating whatever drivel is flavour of the month that inevitably gets shown to be nonsense, adds absolutely nothing of substance and probably makes further restrictions far more likely.
  3. Seems the uselessness of the government has infected the Treasury and Sunak. A crap job support scheme that relies on employers' goodwill to keep people in jobs that might actually be viable. I mean in many cases you might as well make someone redundant and recruit someone on a part-time contract. And absolutely nothing on job creation.
  4. Some US sports investors in talks to buy Burnley. Sean's head will explode if he gets some pound notes to spend.
  5. He might be a decent player with a change of scenery and a fresh start. But he's never going to be a good player for us and the fact he hasn't improved when his last two managers here have had a decent record of coaching our players on isn't a good sign.
  6. Wouldn't be so downbeat about the squad players based on that. It's a completely different all of them having to play together when some clearly aren't fit compared to dropping in and out of the first team as and when required.
  7. Looks like those holding Sweden up as the holy grail might have to move on https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/23/sweden-shifts-no-lockdown-strategy/
  8. No cos you haven't answered how that explains the quickly rising number of cases identified by the testing system, the ONS's figures, ZOE symptom tracker, REACT nor the rising number of hospitalisations which unfortunately will only continue to rise and result in deaths. Which are the things that matter. Unless come the start of September we conveniently all of sudden found loads more people to test with smaller amounts of the virus present that slipped the net before but given most people presenting for a Pillar 2 test have symptoms, it's unlikely. For reference, New Zealand performs tests with 45 cycles, has performed 924,637 tests and returned 1,468 positive cases, a maximum possible FPR of 0.15%. The ONS's lowest number of positives was 50 from 120000 tests, a maximum FPR of 0.04%. I'd particularly like a source with hard evidence for this bit, "Anything over 30 is likely just magnifying dead fragments of virus and not someone who is infectious." Given that virus identified during a higher cycle could be because of poor sampling or at the start of an infection. And that when Dutch hospitals used testing to see if people could come out of isolation, the vast majority of IC patients were negative after two weeks. So if our testing is picking up all these false positives, it's because people have recently been infected anyway. I await yet more obfuscation Unsurprising.
  9. No, they'll be higher. We're still not in a position where testing is revealing every single case, the ONS's random sample study (which of course will have an element of false positives itself) put daily infections at about 6000 between 04/09 and 10/09, or about double what testing was showing. Thinking about numbers of false positives is a bit daft given actual cases are almost certainly significantly higher than known cases identified through the testing system. The ONS's study remains near enough constant in its sample size and yet showed close to a doubling from the previous week, that can't be attributed to FPR. False positives are just a smokescreen for people in denial trying to sound clever, it can't explain away the direction of travel and there's plenty of other data points which hint towards that direction of travel anyway.
  10. Why does it matter? If your curve is going upwards at a reasonable pace then, unless you're testing huge amounts more everyday or the test just gets magically less reliable everyday, it's because there's more actual cases. If cases double every week, then even if half your positives are false you only have an extra week to respond. So what is the relevance of false positives?
  11. He says as YouGov releases a poll that says 78% of people support the new measures (17% oppose)
  12. I do have some sympathy for those pushing back against this in that if you accept your opponents framing of things, use their language and repeat their messaging, it has the potential to strengthen your opponent. It's early days and Starmer's having to repair great reputational damage in this sphere so I get why he's doing it, but Ed Miliband fell into this trap with austerity in 2015 and it just didn't work. For a speech that was meant to be about a refresh, change, and looking forward, it did an awful lot of looking back. Maybe this time around having a message closer to the Conservatives whilst playing the competence card could work.
  13. Have a feeing we might get another schooling on Sunday.
  14. Why do you compare the UK to Sweden and not Sweden to Norway/Finland. I mean based on your utter nonsense acomparing Peru and Brazil based on them being next to each and having some poverty, then it should be Sweden and Norway based on the fact they're next door to each other and have some rich people. Of course you wouldn't because your argument consists of specifically chosen data points without, ironic given you've just lectured someone else on it, any attempt at sophisticated contextualisation. Correlation ≠ causation and so until you build a complex model controlling for all relevant variables, you're chatting out of your derriere.
  15. Well idk why you take 'the public' as an ad hominem attack on you or anyone else's actions as individuals. But you are part of a community that isn't being as vigilant as it could and should. Seems a bit strange to take it personally. I mean you've just started with of course the public are to blame as we are all part of it and finished with offence that the public is being blamed. Make your mind up.
×
×
  • Create New...