Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 782261 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 43 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7530 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Also covid deaths aren't what they say they were but the truth won't come out about that so keep the numbers.  They're estimated, and covid was showing up on death certs in people that had serious health issues that killed them.  Covid may have contributed.
That's just a set of spurious claims built on a conspiratorial mindset, not at all based in reality.

The figures I quote are hard numbers, most recently updated by several national and global health entities including hard numbers reported by from epidemiologists in countries conspirators wrongly like to claim as proof of COVID being fake.

Look at you putting all your eggs in the statistics basket.

Need i remind you of all the back and forth we've had about statistics?

People have 'died from covid' without ever being tested for covid. Thats in your numbers.

Take it with a grain of salt.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7531 –
Quote from: kruddler – on

People have 'died from covid' without ever being tested for covid. Thats in your numbers.
There is a symmetry to things like that, false positives or a complete miss, they are the tiny tails on either side of a bell curve so they mean very little relative to the peak. It's why FWHM is so important in an analysis.

Cynics and boosters go wrong when they choose one tail over the other.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7532 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on

People have 'died from covid' without ever being tested for covid. Thats in your numbers.
There is a symmetry to things like that, false positives or a complete miss, they are the tiny tails on either side of a bell curve so they mean very little relative to the peak. It's why FWHM is so important in an analysis.

Cynics and boosters go wrong when they choose one tail over the other.
I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but you assume those numbers are just the tail.
Potentially an incorrect assumption.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7533 –
The only person I know of in Australia to die from covid was a mate's grandmother in a nursing home who had was expected to die any day from dementia. Covid is listed as the cause of death on her death certificate.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7534 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
The only person I know of in Australia to die from covid was a mate's grandmother in a nursing home who had was expected to die any day from dementia. Covid is listed as the cause of death on her death certificate.
My mates dad was one of the first Victorians to die from Covid, he was old but had no health issues. Contracted it, went to hospital and died.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/coronavirus/lifesavers-and-volunteer-ambos-to-form-medical-reserve-force-to-combat-coronavirus-if-crisis-worsens/news-story/cf56f4fdcfb772833dc327ca405e615b
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7535 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but you assume those numbers are just the tail.
Potentially an incorrect assumption.
There is a significant difference between the error bars of early reporting and what surfaces now years later as refined data. The specialists that look at this stuff refine it slowly over time, we could possibly have more doubt two or three years back, but now it's probably 3 or more sigma. That is 68% of data falls within 1 standard deviation, misreporting of refined data will be well outside 1 standard deviation, probably accounting for less than 1% of the refined data.

The error in reporting that remains is not an order of magnitude as is often implied by cynics, so even if much more data is added or excluded, the figures / averages will now barely shift.

It is not the scientists and data specialists that are presenting data that is questionable, but the media and social media. I've had a person argue with me online that data outside 2 standard deviations meant a 3rd of all cases, they were reading the bell curve and making conclusions based on the width across the x-axis. I've come across Stephen Bannon doing much the same, and it relies on the ignorance of the reader / viewer. Now most people here do not need that error explained, but we are not representative of the public.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #7536 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but you assume those numbers are just the tail.
Potentially an incorrect assumption.
There is a significant difference between the error bars of early reporting and what surfaces now years later as refined data. The specialists that look at this stuff refine it slowly over time, we could possibly have more doubt two or three years back, but now it's probably 3 or more sigma. That is 68% of data falls within 1 standard deviation, misreporting of refined data will be well outside 1 standard deviation, probably accounting for less than 1% of the refined data.

The error in reporting that remains is not an order of magnitude as is often implied by cynics, so even if much more data is added or excluded, the figures / averages will now barely shift.

It is not the scientists and data specialists that are presenting data that is questionable, but the media and social media. I've had a person argue with me online that data outside 2 standard deviations meant a 3rd of all cases, they were reading the bell curve and making conclusions based on the width across the x-axis. I've come across Stephen Bannon doing much the same, and it relies on the ignorance of the reader / viewer. Now most people here do not need that error explained, but we are not representative of the public.

You are talking about different things though.
People not understanding basic year 9 maths is 1 thing.

I'm just pointing out that....
$h!t in = $h!t out

The only question is how much of the in is $h!t.
You seem to assume, not much.
Your faith in others nations to report correct is either admirable, or completely naive....i'm not sure which.
As i said, i don't care either way, but accurate collection of data is the most important thing in the whole statistical analysis and reporting....and i'm not as confident as you are that it is at all accurate.