Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sevenlayermuddle]

I’m not sure what Spain are now doing.  It may well be what I’d have liked to see all along, which is stats for all countries by date of death, rather than date of reporting.

That makes it so much easier to wind back a fixed number of days, and see whether a change in the slope on the graphs can be associated with an event such as VE day street parties, or a change in lockdown rules.  These are random examples, whist either or both may well be the case I’m not suggesting any such specific associations necessarily exist.

Unfortunately it also means that ‘latest’ reports will always be an underestimate, because nobody is likely to know exactly how many people died yesterday, it takes a few days for the new deaths to be registered and counted.   And that might lead to media allegations that governments (in this case, Spain) are cooking the books, even though the data is actually more useful.

All ‘imho’ of course, other ‘ho’s will undoubtably differ.

[chenks]

‘Bumping gums’ is not an expression I have come across before.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bumping%20them%20gums

[sevenlayermuddle]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bumping%20them%20gums

Yes I already found it thanks, very amusing.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Unfortunately it also means that ‘latest’ reports will always be an underestimate, because nobody is likely to know exactly how many people died yesterday, it takes a few days for the new deaths to be registered and counted.   And that might lead to media allegations that governments (in this case, Spain) are cooking the books, even though the data is actually more useful.

All ‘imho’ of course, other ‘ho’s will undoubtably differ.

The problem I have with death statistics is that its only relevant if we have a picture of how long people normally survive, how long from infection to complications, etc.  I'd imagine time from infection to symptoms to death is pretty random, unless I have statistics to suggest otherwise.  Its obviously going to be impacted by the number of people who had prior conditions too.

The only relevant figure really is number of new confirmed cases, and even that is dependant on people being tested, which AFAIK only people who end up at hospital or are key workers, are being tested.

[d2d4j]

Hi

I am sorry if this is wrong thread but as I said before, I am convinced I had Covid 19 in December last year

Reading a thread from another forum here is what was posted

Right or wrong but I am convinced I have already had it in December

Many thanks

John

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52935644

[sevenlayermuddle]

The problem I have with death statistics is that its only relevant if we have a picture of how long people normally survive, how long from infection to complications, etc.  I'd imagine time from infection to symptoms to death is pretty random, unless I have statistics to suggest otherwise.  Its obviously going to be impacted by the number of people who had prior conditions too.

The only relevant figure really is number of new confirmed cases, and even that is dependant on people being tested, which AFAIK only people who end up at hospital or are key workers, are being tested.

I think actually, whilst the time from infection to death does vary, if you have a large enough statistical sample then you can draw some conclusions from average and median values that are meaningful.

Numbers of confirmed cases is a pretty useless statistic, since it is seriously skewed by the number of tests carried out, which is in turn skewed by how many tests are available.

Number of deaths is a pretty reliable number as deaths are an unambiguous event. It might vary by +/- say 50% depending in whether you count care home deaths, but number of cases has been widely estimated to be up to 100 fold in error.  That’s 1000%, isn’t it?

But are we verging off topic again?   Me as much to blame as anybody, but this probably belongs in the Coronavirus thread, whereas we are in ‘BBC bias’?

Fact remains that BBC Newsnight reported fake news, by saying UK daily deaths exceeded all of EU combined.

I actually felt sorry for them at one point, when UK ‘overtook’ Italy in deaths per million pop, which I found sobering, even though it may have been misleading if Italy doesn’t include care homes.  But BBC didn’t even mention it.  They couldn’t really, as they’d already some days earlier screamed that UK had overtaken Italy at which time it was fake news, based on absolute numbers rather than percentages.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Hi

I am sorry if this is wrong thread but as I said before, I am convinced I had Covid 19 in December last year

Reading a thread from another forum here is what was posted

Right or wrong but I am convinced I have already had it in December

Many thanks

John

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52935644

I also recall both of us here having a horrid and rather frightening respiratory illness  in early January, that was in a class of its own above anything I ever recall. 

But as per previous post, it’s not related to BBC  bias.  Maybe the other thread might be more apt?

PS, hope you don’t mind, I’ve added that link in the other thread...

https://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,24502.msg417309.html#msg417309

 

Edit: added PS

[sevenlayermuddle]

Back on topic, interesting article discussing challenges facing Beeb’s new Director General...

https://www.thearticle.com/can-a-new-director-general-fix-the-bbc

But the real problem is that the BBC is biased — over Israel, Brexit, Cummings and now the US. Its producers and programme editors seem to think its audience are all Guardian readers.

As a life-long Guardian reader, who has always turned to BBC when neutrally was required, I agree.

[jelv]

The BBC news website has changed the headline of a news article published yesterday. It is now Brexit: Gove defends £705m plan for border posts and staff - and the the article has been updated a number of times.

The original title was “Brexit border infrastructure gets £705m boost.”. That's clearly publishing the pro-government spin on the announcement.

An unbiased summary of the facts of the announcement would have been “Brexit border infrastructure to cost British taxpayers an additional £705m.”

The current headline could easily read "Brexit: Gove criticised for £705m plan for border posts and staff" so it's still pro-government.

[chenks]

actually no.
both original and new headling are factually accurate.

your suggested headline is also factually accurate, but everything spent costs the taxpayer, so not sure why that angle would be used - and it's potentially anti-government bias.
you section suggested headline is actually only partially accurate, as there will be some that don't criticise it, so again that could be anti-goverment in bias.

those who want to see bias will find it in anything, even if it isn't there. funny that isn't it?

[jelv]

The original might be factually accurate (in your opinion) - but it is lazy replication of blatant government spin that reveals the author is sympathetic to the government line and therefore didn't see the problem.

The problem is the word "boost". That implies it is something extra, to be celebrated, a good thing. There's many ways that headline could have been neutral.

[chenks]

boost - to improve or increase something.

so is something being "increased"? clearly the answer is yes. the defintion doesn't not imply celebration.
does Gove defend it? the answer would appear to be yes.

and something being "factually accurate" can't be an opnion, it either is or it isn't. facts are opinion.

as i said, people of a certain nature will tend to find bias in anything if they want to see it.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Harping back to the opening post, it was not the opinion of anybody here that the BBC was biased over Cummings.  It was the opinion of the her own BBC bosses, that Maitlis breached impartiality rules.

It doesn’t matter how much you dislike Cummings, we can’t let the situation arise whereby bias is tolerated as long as it’s ‘only about somebody we don’t like’.

Not the first time Maitlis was reprimanded either for being biased, she has form for it, in 2019 on her own Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Maitlis

An investigation by the BBC Executive Complaints Unit upheld the complaints against her, agreeing that she been "persistent and personal" in her criticism of Liddle, thus "leaving her open to the charge that she had failed to be even-handed" in the discussion between Brexit-supporting Liddle and his anti-Brexit opponent Tom Baldwin.

Again, that’s not an opinion of anybody here.  It’s a decision reached by the BBC themselves.

[chenks]

so you don't think the BBC is bias then?

i should also note that having an opinion on something and voicing it isn't being "Bias". it's only bias if you continue to voice such an opinion even when it appears to be dubious.
the BBC only needs to be impartial, so that does allow someone voicing an opinion providing there is someone there to offer an opposing opinion.

however, the requirement to be impartial is a total nonsense as you end up with someone talking about how 5G isn't killing people and having to have a crackpot on saying the opposite.

[sevenlayermuddle]

so you don't think the BBC is bias then?

i should also note that having an opinion on something and voicing it isn't being "Bias". it's only bias if you continue to voice such an opinion even when it appears to be dubious.
the BBC only needs to be impartial, so that does allow someone voicing an opinion providing there is someone there to offer an opposing opinion.

however, the requirement to be impartial is a total nonsense as you end up with someone talking about how 5G isn't killing people and having to have a crackpot on saying the opposite.

I might actually think the BBC are biassed.  I might even  think they have never given up their plans to stop Brexit.   I’m sure others here will think they are biassed in other ways.  And we are all entitled to our opinions.  We are even entitled to post them on forums.

But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think,  in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.