O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Three of you are waiting for me to explain it. Really?
Look at the second sentence of post #2666. If you can’t follow that then I won’t bother waiting for an answer...there really is no point.

[Geoff Parkstone]

...add short term memory loss and talking to yourself to your increasingly eccentric behaviour.

Anyway, this thread...page 264...post #2631...para 1. That should help. In your own time...or not, your choice.

This should cheer you up, perhaps even - given your numbers fixation - cause a ripple of excitement in GP World. Today is both a palindrome and an ambigram. Contain yourself.

I'd noticed that too. The next one is o3-02-2030 I believe. Slightly more regular than Halley's comet at the moment but beyond 2032 rare as hen's teeth.

If the question is as TTR suggests, my answer is, I have no idea on the timing of more libertarian approaches, but for sure it has to be done at some point. Why now? Why not now? We finally have to come out of our shells as does the rest of the world. No point developing a vaccine and still hiding away - spring is approaching and IMO time to revisit herd immunity with vaccines and booster add ones. So on balance I trust it's been done on a medical basis, especially now Boris has a new distraction in Ukraine to aid his flagging popularity

[ramAnag]

I'd noticed that too. The next one is o3-02-2030 I believe. Slightly more regular than Halley's comet at the moment but beyond 2032 rare as hen's teeth.

If the question is as TTR suggests, my answer is, I have no idea on the timing of more libertarian approaches, but for sure it has to be done at some point. Why now? Why not now? We finally have to come out of our shells as does the rest of the world. No point developing a vaccine and still hiding away - spring is approaching and IMO time to revisit herd immunity with vaccines and booster add ones. So on balance I trust it's been done on a medical basis, especially now Boris has a new distraction in Ukraine to aid his flagging popularity

I completely give up. You must all be on a wind up. This thread. Page 264. Post#2631. Para’ 1. You’ve even quoted it!

[Geoff Parkstone]

If it's the thread I think, then I've answered it to the best of my ability as there are multiple questions none of which I know the answers to. My phone doesn't show post numbers.

[ramAnag]

If it's the thread I think, then I've answered it to the best of my ability as there are multiple questions none of which I know the answers to. My phone doesn't show post numbers.

Okay...a degree of sense at last and a valid excuse. Context is important and the question was in direct response to Tricky but seeing as the three of you appeared to be acting out some sort of triumvirate role it applies equally...however the question was this.

‘Perhaps you’d explain why my ‘examples’ - Germany in October, a Derbyshire Supermarket and the DCFC club shop last Saturday - are less of a ‘different’/valid environment than your (Tricky’s) upcoming trip to Bavaria or GP’s from Croydon station’?

I apologise to you for failing to appreciate the limitations posed by your phone. Tricky, on the other hand, clearly had access to the whole post but seemed unable to comprehend what ‘paragraph 1’ meant, hence my frustration.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I will give a comprehensive answer when my eyes are working properly, but for now the difference between examples is chalk and cheese. My "sample"/observation was across three ethnic groups examining different behavioural practices in order to postulate upon whether there was a cause effect identifiable.

Yours just looked at behaviours of one ethnic group and so are useless for evaluating differences based on ethnicities.

Your observation can validly be compared to my white only data and will allow an enhanced perspective on the behavioural aspects of that cohort, but it adds nothing to the evaluation of comparative behaviours between the sub sets.

Does this help - because I think it's what all 3 of us have been trying to explain to you for about 5 ot 6 pages now! (Well maybe not TTR, as he's ploughing his own furrow)

[ramAnag]

I will give a comprehensive answer when my eyes are working properly, but for now the difference between examples is chalk and cheese. My "sample"/observation was across three ethnic groups examining different behavioural practices in order to postulate upon whether there was a cause effect identifiable.

Yours just looked at behaviours of one ethnic group and so are useless for evaluating differences based on ethnicities.

Your observation can validly be compared to my white only data and will allow an enhanced perspective on the behavioural aspects of that cohort, but it adds nothing to the evaluation of comparative behaviours between the sub sets.

Does this help - because I think it's what all 3 of us have been trying to explain to you for about 5 ot 6 pages now! (Well maybe not TTR, as he's ploughing his own furrow)

Okay, that’s sufficiently comprehensive thanks.

I’m sorry...I’m not being obtuse and I genuinely don’t ‘get it’...but here goes.

Last Friday you saw a (somewhat questionable) 200 people on a train. Of those 200 people ‘perhaps 50%’ - in your words - were ‘black/mixed race’. Of the others you claim that the Asians appeared to be the most mask compliant but declined to give further details.

I suggested it would be unwise to jump to conclusions in such circumstances and, interestingly, Andy immediately stirred the pot by anticipating that someone - presumably Swale - might have accused you of racism. He hadn’t.

Following your example I happened to find myself in a Derbyshire Dales supermarket on Saturday morning and the Pride Park store about 2.30 on Saturday afternoon.

With your observations in mind I took more notice than usual. Both environments were largely, if not entirely, white and mask compliance was much reduced from what I anticipated in the Supermarket and, my own group apart, virtually nil in the club shop.

My point is that any conclusions we reach from such small samples are highly questionable. You seemed to wish to make a negative point about black/mixed race people which, on the evidence of your sample, is well founded. Equally, on the evidence of my experience in the DCFC store, one can point to the example of that specific group of white people as being just as bad/non compliant.

Beyond that I’m lost. You and Andy, with Tricky desperately clinging to your coat tails, appear to be dismissing my evidence because it contained no ‘diversity’ whereas your sample included different ethnicities, but that is surely irrelevant.
Your group may have contained three of four different ethnic groups but the behaviour/compliance they exhibited was individual and unlikely to be impacted upon by the others. Your conclusion is that 0% of the (approximately 100) black/mixed race people you saw displayed a complete lack of mask compliance. Your other conclusion is that the Asians in your group were a great deal more mask compliant.
My conclusion is that the largely white people in the Supermarket were more on a par with the Asians you saw and the, estimated 150, white DCFC fans in the club shop were little better than the Black/Mixed race folk you saw on the train.

As I’ve said all along...I don’t think either observation gets us anywhere, although I agree with the closing sentiment of your original post. Beyond that...I can’t understand why my sample is less valid or relevant. Yours was perhaps a little more ‘autistic’, but both were random, set within indoor environments. All the ethnic groups concerned were acting (and measured) independently and I cannot understand why this brings into question my comparative observations about my one particular ‘subset’.

Hope that clears that up.

[swaledale]

Okay, that’s sufficiently comprehensive thanks.

I’m sorry...I’m not being obtuse and I genuinely don’t ‘get it’...but here goes.

Last Friday you saw a (somewhat questionable) 200 people on a train. Of those 200 people ‘perhaps 50%’ - in your words - were ‘black/mixed race’. Of the others you claim that the Asians appeared to be the most mask compliant but declined to give further details.

I suggested it would be unwise to jump to conclusions in such circumstances and, interestingly, Andy immediately stirred the pot by anticipating that someone - presumably Swale - might have accused you of racism. He hadn’t.

Following your example I happened to find myself in a Derbyshire Dales supermarket on Saturday morning and the Pride Park store about 2.30 on Saturday afternoon.

With your observations in mind I took more notice than usual. Both environments were largely, if not entirely, white and mask compliance was much reduced from what I anticipated in the Supermarket and, my own group apart, virtually nil in the club shop.

My point is that any conclusions we reach from such small samples are highly questionable. You seemed to wish to make a negative point about black/mixed race people which, on the evidence of your sample, is well founded. Equally, on the evidence of my experience in the DCFC store, one can point to the example of that specific group of white people as being just as bad/non compliant.

Beyond that I’m lost. You and Andy, with Tricky desperately clinging to your coat tails, appear to be dismissing my evidence because it contained no ‘diversity’ whereas your sample included different ethnicities, but that is surely irrelevant.
Your group may have contained three of four different ethnic groups but the behaviour/compliance they exhibited was individual and unlikely to be impacted upon by the others. Your conclusion is that 0% of the (approximately 100) black/mixed race people you saw displayed a complete lack of mask compliance. Your other conclusion is that the Asians in your group were a great deal more mask compliant.
My conclusion is that the largely white people in the Supermarket were more on a par with the Asians you saw and the, estimated 150, white DCFC fans in the club shop were little better than the Black/Mixed race folk you saw on the train.

As I’ve said all along...I don’t think either observation gets us anywhere, although I agree with the closing sentiment of your original post. Beyond that...I can’t understand why my sample is less valid or relevant. Yours was perhaps a little more ‘autistic’, but both were random, set within indoor environments. All the ethnic groups concerned were acting (and measured) independently and I cannot understand why this brings into question my comparative observations about my one particular ‘subset’.

Hope that clears that up.

Full marks for persistence rA, but I fear your wasting your time and also being side tracked by people who are trying to reach the conclusion that the fact that BAME people have been more adversely affected by Covid could be down to their behaviour.

The essence of their argument with you and I is that to be comparable, all observations require there to be a racial mix in groups, observing a group of mainly white people being poor on compliance with mask wearing, doesn't prove that black people aren't equally poor. It does show that some white people are not compliant, just as GP's observations show that some black people aren't compliant.

However, neither observations actually prove anything - whilst it might suit some people to dismiss the apparently greater effect of Covid on the BAME population as being "down to their behaviour" even a cursory knowledge of the use of data to reach a conclusion would dismiss that thought as not true.


One would wonder why anyone would be looking to "blame" people of a particular ethnicity for something that affects them, but then clearly some spend quite a lot of time thinking about such things.

[ramAnag]

Full marks for persistence rA, but I fear your wasting your time and also being side tracked by people who are trying to reach the conclusion that the fact that BAME people have been more adversely affected by Covid could be down to their behaviour.

The essence of their argument with you and I is that to be comparable, all observations require there to be a racial mix in groups, observing a group of mainly white people being poor on compliance with mask wearing, doesn't prove that black people aren't equally poor. It does show that some white people are not compliant, just as GP's observations show that some black people aren't compliant.

However, neither observations actually prove anything - whilst it might suit some people to dismiss the apparently greater effect of Covid on the BAME population as being "down to their behaviour" even a cursory knowledge of the use of data to reach a conclusion would dismiss that thought as not true.


One would wonder why anyone would be looking to "blame" people of a particular ethnicity for something that affects them, but then clearly some spend quite a lot of time thinking about such things.

Agree with all that Swale, but having had my intelligence, numeracy skills and ability to comprehend challenged by two who are no better equipped and one who seems considerably less able I sought to set the record straight.
It is your ‘essence of the argument’ point in your second paragraph that I am in fundamental disagreement with where GP and Andy are concerned. There is no need, imo, for samples to contain the same racial mix precisely because the behaviour of all the ethnic subsets referred to are being measured entirely independently.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'll get more sense out of the pigeons on the next thread