Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Probably another thing that only 'other' people suffer from Tim but not intelligent educated free thinkers like yourself ?

You seriously think I am the only one here that this applies to? How would you describe a frenetic google search to dig up some post, any post, that appears to discredit Prof. Ionannidis as opposed to hearing what the man has to say?

[Tim Drayton]

Cutting and pasting any old post ... ad-hominem attacks? How nice it would be to have some intelligent debate. What is it that you think Prof. Ioannides, basing his views on the results of recent scientific studies that have become available and reaching the best possible conclusion based on current data, has got wrong?

Prediction is not an exact science and everyone gets it wrong. Ioannidis himself in the interview admits that he, too, makes mistakes. But which of the following two forecasts came closer to the truth?

This is from Ionannidis' Washington Post interview:

'Data from Iceland and Denmark, which have done the best random sampling, also point in the same direction, Ioannidis said. “If I were to make an informed estimate based on the limited testing data we have, I would say that covid-19 will result in fewer than 40,000 deaths this season in the USA,” Ioannidis told me.'

The latest death toll in the USA, which there is ample evidence to show is inflated by attributing death to covid-19 when people may well have died of the underlying condition which the vast majority of those die have, is 42,604.

The Imperial College London forecast for deaths in the UK, based on which a massive assault on civil liberties and fundamental rights was staged, was 500,000. So far, official figures put the number of deaths at 16,509.

Incidentally, if anybody can point me in the direction of talks by eminently qualified health professionals who say that current media coverage of the pandemic is rational and scientifically based and all the draconian measures being taken are warranted, I would be happy to listen.

Incidentally, on its website:

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/partners/

Imperial College London boasts that it is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, both organizations widely believed to be little more than fronts for big pharma’s interests.

[erolz66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Probably another thing that only 'other' people suffer from Tim but not intelligent educated free thinkers like yourself ?

You seriously think I am the only one here that this applies to? How would you describe a frenetic google search to dig up some post, any post, that appears to discredit Prof. Ionannidis as opposed to hearing what the man has to say?

I am not the one preaching 'certainty' here. There was no 'frantic search' for anything. I quite normally and naturally came across a post on fb from someone who has been a long time friend of mine that related to Prof. Ionannidis that did not in my view seek to discredit him but did seek to place the faith other people were showing in their non expert interpretations of what his research indicates in to the context of 'we still do not know what is going on'. Forgive me for daring to 'share' that here.

You complain about people seeking to 'discredit' Prof. Ionannidis when those people are not imo doing that at all and then go on to appear seek to discredit Imperial College.

Look I probably expected too much from you Tim. I saw you as less 'paphitis' and more intelligent adult free thinker. My bad.

[erolz66]

We should today be getting week 15 ONS figures for total deaths in England and wales. I await those with interest. If they do not fit what you want to believe how will you react I wonder ?

Numbers are just in

Week 15 up to 10-apr 2020 - 18516

[Tim Drayton]

Yet another scientific study in the USA which suggests “infections from the new coronavirus are far more widespread - and the fatality rate much lower - in L.A. County than previously thought.”

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcomm ... &prid=2328

[Tim Drayton]

We should today be getting week 15 ONS figures for total deaths in England and wales. I await those with interest. If they do not fit what you want to believe how will you react I wonder ?

Numbers are just in

Week 15 up to 10-apr 2020 - 18516

Thanks for reporting. Let's hope this is the peak.

[Tim Drayton]

As with last week's figures, there is a glaring anomaly, though. The death toll of 18,516 is 7,996 more than the five-year average of 10,520.
If you look at the number of daily covid-19 deaths reported over that week (and leaving to one side the evidence that these figures are inflated):
29.3: 209, 30.3: 180, 31.3: 381, 1.4: 563, 2.4: 569, 3.4: 684, this totals 2586. How come deaths are about 8,000 above average? How do you account for all the other extra deaths?

[erolz66]

We should today be getting week 15 ONS figures for total deaths in England and wales. I await those with interest. If they do not fit what you want to believe how will you react I wonder ?

Numbers are just in

Week 15 up to 10-apr 2020 - 18516

Thanks for reporting. Let's hope this is the peak.

Amen to that.

I look at these numbers, before the 'media' before 'experts' because I am searching for understanding. These numbers are 'more understandable' to me than most because :-

1. It is hard to argue about if someone is dead or not. Anything relating to cause of death is to a material degree subjective and 'arguable'.
2. The systems and people that collate these numbers are in place and have been doing so for many years now. Any numbers relating specifically to the virus are less 'hard' right now than these numbers.

So I look at them 'before' the 'cause of death' figures from the same place even.

Now of course 'interpretation' of what these figure mean or show is another thing entirely but they are my 'starting point' for trying to 'understand'. It is possible that the narrative of 'those dying are predominately people who were going to die soon anyway' with soon being says weeks. The figures we have to date do not mean this is not possible. However trying to think critically, trying to 'if this then what would I expect' then if that narrative is true then I would within weeks expect to see drops in the weekly figures vs 5 year average of similar scale. So I will look for that as the data comes in. It is also almost certainly the case that some of these apparent 'extra' deaths are from the 'lockdown' rather than the virus itself. People are getting less 'treatment' for things as a result of the lockdown. I accept that and I seek to do my best to understand to what degree that is the case or not. Right now with the information I have I find it hard to believe that a significant number of these apparent 'extra' deaths are related to or primarily related to 'lockdown' and not the virus itself.

Putting first 15 weeks in chart form vs 5 year average looks like this

deaths.JPG

Finally - sorry Tim if I 'went off' on you to hard and unfairly. We are all a little 'frayed' right now I think. Apology offered.

[erolz66]

As with last week's figures, there is a glaring anomaly, though. The death toll of 18,516 is 7,996 more than the five-year average of 10,520.
If you look at the number of daily covid-19 deaths reported over that week (and leaving to one side the evidence that these figures are inflated):
29.3: 209, 30.3: 180, 31.3: 381, 1.4: 563, 2.4: 569, 3.4: 684, this totals 2586. How come deaths are about 8,000 above average? How do you account for all the other extra deaths?

Our posts crossed but ill repost

I look at these numbers, before the 'media' before 'experts' because I am searching for understanding. These numbers are 'more understandable' to me than most because :-

1. It is hard to argue about if someone is dead or not. Anything relating to cause of death is to a material degree subjective and 'arguable'.
2. The systems and people that collate these numbers are in place and have been doing so for many years now. Any numbers relating specifically to the virus are less 'hard' right now than these numbers.

So I look at them 'before' the 'cause of death' figures from the same place even.

For me the total death numbers are vastly more 'hard' than any numbers relating specifically to the virus. My initial gut reaction when there are discrepancies therefore is that the chances are the total death ones are more a reflection of reality.

[Tim Drayton]

...
For me the total death numbers are vastly more 'hard' than any numbers relating specifically to the virus. My initial gut reaction when there are discrepancies therefore is that the chances are the total death ones are more a reflection of reality.

I am afraid to me that sounds like a classic case of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias