horsefly
-
Content Count
10,328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Posts posted by horsefly
-
-
Barca have agreed a deal for Dest. looks like Aarons interest is over. Maybe Bayern will come in for him.
-
6 hours ago, Aggy said:No need for making it simpler. It’s what I’ve been saying to you all morning. Glad we now agree!
So deluded, but if that keeps you happy so be it. We certainly don't agree and the fact that you might think that demonstrates your lack of understanding. I understand the statistics you don't . The NHS accept these stats, the government accept these stats but you don't (perhaps you might think about that).
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Aggy said:I’m not disputing the statistics or saying they aren’t consistent with the examples.
I’m saying your statement that:
“No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions“
is contradicted by your statement that:
“they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus.”
Read my whole statement accurately and you will see there is absolutely no contradiction in my position. If it helps you out let me amend the first statement that you have taken out of context to the following:
"No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions other than they would not have died (of those underlying conditions)at the moment they did if they had not caught Covid-19."
In other words Covid-19 killed them, and we do not speculate at all how long they would have survived with their underlying conditions if it had not.
No doubt future studies utilising statistical analysis will seek to do just that, but this set of statistics doesn't.
If this isn't clear enough for you then I'm afraid I do not know how to make it any simpler.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:Well, you do - you say they weren’t expected to die from their other conditions.
Edit: can see your response to BB, so looks like we’re all agreed!.
YES! exactly! if they had not got Covid-19 they were not expected to die from those underlying conditions at the point at which they died. That is why the doctor concerned records the death as caused by Covid-19. I think you're missing the point that a doctor's recording of death is an indexical statement. It rightly makes no reference to what they might have died of later if they hadn't died of Covid-19 (just think about this for a moment and you will see that it would be absurd to do so)
-
8 minutes ago, Aggy said:As two examples to follow on from that:
1. A man has terminal cancer and is given three weeks to live. The next day the man is in a car crash and dies from his injuries. Cause of death is the injuries from the crash. But it is inaccurate to say he was not expected to die from anything else. He was expected to die from cancer within three weeks.
2. An 85 year old man has multiple illnesses and doctors think that one of them will cause his organs to stop working within the next four weeks. He has caught covid and dies after only two weeks. Covid could have been the thing that stopped his organs from working. But it isn’t true to say he wasn’t expected to die from anything else. He was expected to die from something else within four weeks.
I have already dealt with this earlier, for e.g.
"We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age."
No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions. The statistics do not attempt in any way to do this. Thus your examples do not in anyway shape or form undermine the fact that they record circa 29,000 deaths from Covid-19. They are entirely consistent with accepting the point of your examples, because of this.
-
2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:Eg Man has a heart attack and is admitted whilst there they have a positve test and dies of heart failure 7 days later.
I was musing on the significance of events like this that get recorded. I dont suppose we have enough data to really analyse this so bk matter.
I see your point now. Certainly the statistics in the chart we are considering do not deal with such cases
-
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:Apologies if you think I was misrepresenting your point. I hadn’t intended to - your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid.
The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else.
If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later. So they could still have been expected to die from something else, but covid effectively sped it up. That is supported by the lower than average deaths in June, July, August - people who would otherwise have died in those months (ie were expected to die of something else) died a few weeks earlier because of covid.
I accept that is likely to be true in only a fairly small proportion of cases. But the fact deaths were lower than the five year average for three consecutive months after the main “wave” of covid deaths does suggest there was a decent number who were expected to die from other things but covid got to them slightly sooner.
Thanks for the apology, but it's not that I just "think" you misrepresented me, it's that you "actually" misrepresent my claim. And I'm afraid you are continuing to misrepresent the statistics shown in the chart.
You say:
"your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid.
The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else.
If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later."
The point is that the statistics are not remotely attempting to make such claims and I certainly don't either (just re-read my contributions). It is not the point of the statistics to make any sort of claims about the life-expectancy of the individuals recorded as a result of their underlying conditions. The statistics simply record that the individual died from the effects of Covid-19. That's it, period.
-
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:If its on the death certificate the doctor feels that covid was material . What we sont know is how many people have had a positive test and are on the stats but covid is not listed on the certificate.
Sorry but I just don't get what your trying to say here or what is supposed to be its significance
-
1 hour ago, Aggy said:I think you’re reading into posts things that aren’t there. Certainly I haven’t tried at any point to downplay numbers or to make covid look less bad than it is. You seem to want to be having a “covid is worse than flu” argument about every post. Nobody has suggested the same shouldn’t be applied to flu.
People can think covid is worse than flu and still point out when one statement used to support that view is incorrect. Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else. That isn’t quite right and undermines the otherwise correct point he or she was trying to make (namely that, as both BB and I have also said, Jools’ argument was very wrong).
I’ve used some very rough numbers in post above to suggest that at least three quarters of covid deaths probably were caused exclusively/mainly by covid - and my dodgy examples suggest covid is at least three times worse than flu.
Earlier in the week there were claims flu doesn’t affect multiple organs - incorrect. Claims two people in their twenties with no underlying health conditions were in icu in Birmingham - incorrect. Pointing out things are factually incorrect doesn’t mean covid isn’t as bad as or is only equally as bad as flu. If someone came on here and said “flu kills 400,000 every year” I’d point out that’s factually incorrect as well.
Edit: and I actually think there is value in discussing the points in recent posts. The thread used to be about trying to understand covid. Given it’s highly probable that not everyone who has covid on the death certificate died literally just from covid and nothing else, discussing it seems sensible. Ignoring that and suggesting something which isn’t correct seems less sensible.I appreciate your effort to explain yourself but I'm afraid you're still making a fundamental mistake. I think the best way to demonstrate this is as follows:
You said: "Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else." Now let's look at what I actually said: "They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus." By NOT quoting me accurately and missing out the crucial conditional "...if they had not caught the virus..." you radically misrepresent the point I made and thus confuse the statistics. The point is they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus. Thus in the example I presented, the individual was not expected to die from angina, and while the angina contributed by making it harder for him to recover from Covid-19, it was the Covid-19 that killed him and not the angina. If he had not had Covid-19 he would not have died. That is why the doctor correctly recorded the death as caused by Covid_19 and not angina.
-
15 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:I'm sorry for being stupid here but I really dont see it.
The data notes say that the spreadsheet:
"contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate...where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process"
There is no requirement that where a test is positive the disease must be the direct cause of death as far as i can see. This makes sense to me, generally (though I may be wrong) if we die of disease it is because our organs pack up. It could be that this failure is a consequence of covid, it could be that covid was a contributing factor or it could be that it was largely inconsequential. And i bet its very difficult to tell which given the result is the same, the organ has packed up.
I'm not seeking to dismiss anythimg here. This is the worst dosease for a century and comes at a time when we had largely forgotten that the vast majority of humans ever born have subsequently died of disease.
Perhaps the easiest way to grasp it is think from the perspective of the doctor filling in the death certificate. She is effectively saying that if the patient had not contracted Covid-19 then she wouldn't have died (i.e. Covid-19 killed her). It's worth remembering that death certificates are a legal document and filling them in falsely can result it severe punishment.
-
1 minute ago, Aggy said:This is getting worse than the Brexit thread.
so you don't have an answer then?
-
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:Yes, I know they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned.
You stated that they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions.
If they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?
The point you’re otherwise making is correct. Calm down.
Sorry but you really are being quite silly now. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be provocative or genuinely don't understand how to read health statistics. You say "if they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?". Whether they were expected to die from their underlying conditions or not is utterly irrelevant. The relevant point is that it was Covid-19 that killed them. I really fail to see what is so hard to grasp here. We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age. I really don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. You need to stop conflating underlying conditions and life expectancy with the actual cause of death. Even this Government is not crass enough to do that and quite rightly accepts the statistics the NHS provides. It's simply a matter of science.
-
26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:This seems to be common ploy by those that wish to downplay the effects of Covid. It's no different to flu deaths reported annually that we treat as flu deaths - or indeed many other ailments. We all have underlying issues - even if we don't know them (yet) which will be contributory factors - over-weight, diabetes, immuno-compromised, alcoholic - the list is endless.
I think you're probably right about this, because it really shouldn't be that hard to understand these statistics (Even the Government is not stupid enough to conflate underlying conditions with the actual cause of death).
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Aggy said:The point BB is making surely is that the stats are silent on whether or not they would have died a few weeks later from their underlying condition anyway. So it isn’t accurate to say they would definitely still be alive now if it wasn’t for covid. (But it definitely also isn’t accurate to say they definitely would have been dead, which is what Jools is saying.)
Oh dear! I'm afraid you have totally missed the point again. The statistics state very clearly that they died from Covid-19. That is why they are labelled "Covid-19 Daily Deaths". They make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned where there were also underlying complicating conditions. The absolutely crucial point you need to be clear on is that in these cases the underlying conditions were NOT the cause of death, Covid-19 was. So for example (to use a real case I know of), a patient with angina was made more vulnerable to the virus because of his condition, but it wasn't the angina that killed him, it was Covid-19, and that is why it was recorded as a death from Covid-19. Exactly the same principle and practice applies to all those deaths recorded as Covid-19 deaths in the statistics quoted.
-
41 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:stupid ? What that make you lot ? So far this morning I've proved you wrong in David Cameron making a dire prediction about peace in Europe if the UK was to leave the EU and who should be on this thread, plus the Galileo project
They say ignorance is bliss, it clearly isn't, it's just plain embarrassing
-
52 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:He’s too stupid to troll-either transitively or intransitively 🤣🤣🤣
Is that because we're in the transition period?
-
3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:thanks, i dont thi k it goes quite as far as you imply (ie that if it were not for covid these people would still be walking around) but it also doesn't go as far as saying anything that supports Jools.
My assessment (based on nothing more than 6 months of interest in the subject) is that in the overwhelming majority of reportrd cases covid was a significant contributory factor.
Actually it does, they specifically describe the cause of death as Covid-19. It's the underlying condition that is described as a contributory factor insofar as it makes the patient more vulnerable to being killed by Covid-19. But Covid-19 is definitely regarded as the cause of death in these statistics (hence the title). This point has been explained very clearly by a scientist in one of the "More of Less" radio episodes that I mentioned (I'm afraid I don't recall which weeks episode). I think we can trust the NHS here to label their statistics as "Covid-19 daily deaths" only if the statistics record precisely that.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:The president of the EU, Jean Claude Junker, said, ‘Someone who leaves the union cannot be in the same privileged position of member states.’ Other EU leaders have agreed with the decision to exclude the UK on the grounds of EU security.
You really are quite the buffoon. It's bloody obvious that once we withdrew from the EU we couldn't then hold on to all the benefits that it's actual members enjoy. FFS that's why so many of us wanted to remain. You can't seriously be objecting to the EU's position here, no one can be that stupid. Please try to engage some semblance of thought here. On your account I have a perfect right to pop down to the Carlton Club and tell them that although I'm not a member there I claim right of access to everything that their paid up members have access to. Jesus wept!
-
36 minutes ago, Herman said:According to the Torygraph the brexit government are looking to try and rejoin the EU Galileo project as their plan is failing. And they are pinning it on Theresa May as her idea.
Gosh! must be some mistake, next you will be telling me that they pis*ed multi-millions up the wall on a failed test and trace app. As we and others predicted Herman, the reality of Brexit, as opposed to the flag waving nationalistic ideology driving it, is crumbling before our eyes into a farcical mess
-
20 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:All sides agree that imposing a physical border and related checks would seriously disrupt supply chains within what is a highly integrated island-wide market. Politically it could imperil the Belfast Agreement of April 1998 which established peace between the various opposing factions in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The response of EU Brexit negotiators to these laboriously worked-out proposals has been negative. Michel Barnier has made it clear that if such an arrangement were put in place, it could apply only to the border on the island of Ireland. It could not extend to the UK as a whole because that would enable the UK to “cherry-pick” the advantages of intra-EU free trade while avoiding the obligations of membership, they need to change
Normal procedure is to quote your source when you cut and paste something like this. The idea that you would be capable of writing this is laughable. But don't worry I'll put the source here for you: https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/a-backstop-solution-for-the-irish-border-problem/
-
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:The EU are making Northern Ireland a separate part of the UK by keeping it in the EU
do please pass on the statement from the EU that says NI must stay in the EU. Utter tosh!
-
9 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:Article 16 of the EU's Withdrawal Agreement, Northern Ireland Protocol, between the European Union and the United Kingdom says
" It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule"
Could you please explain just what point you're trying to make here. No one on this site claims anything different. Indeed the points many of us are making concerning the need to avoid a hard customs border between the UK and Ireland depend precisely on this being the case. So what the hell is it that your trying to say?
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:Do you have the source for this? I wasn't aware that there was a filter put to the figures.
I dont think Jools is correct at all. Whilst it is true that some of those were quite high up the reaper's list a lot of people with underlying conditions are still quite far from joining the South stand eternal.
Not quite sure what you mean by "filter", but the site is the one Fools cut and paste from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
Hilariously he doesn't seem to have noticed that the title of the page he pasted is: "Covid-19 daily deaths" and NOT "1,396 Covid-19 deaths and the rest are all due to another cause". They are ALL Covid-19 deaths (even the Government doesn't dispute this).
If you are interested, Radio 4's excellent maths and statistics programme "More or Less" has for many weeks covered the statistics relating to Covid-19. The programme employs genuinely impartial statisticians and scientists to provide analysis, and they are truly enlightening.
-
2 hours ago, Jools said:Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃
The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ----
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.
Here we go again. You display a startling inability to read and understand the statistics, I suggest you try listening to the officials who provide them. Your claim that, " we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions." is simply wrong. ALL the deaths listed are attributed to the virus. The breakdown simply demonstrates that those with a pre-existing condition are more likely to die if they catch the virus. They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus. It really isn't that hard to read these statistics accurately so do try a bit harder
-
1
-
2
-
2 bids turned down for Max.... FROM BARCELONA
in Main Discussion - Norwich City
Posted
yep! looks like Barca are using Aarons in the same way that Liverpool used Lewis to get their real target for a cheaper price.