+ Visit Dundee FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: 5 times fewer

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,635
    Quote Originally Posted by grantzer View Post
    Ok,the three million dead worldwide are all a hoax,the vaccine is a placebo to make money for the scientists, and apparently it's me that needs to wake up...

    Scientists made models on deaths based on no lockdowns,no masks,no social distancing and no vaccine. You can argue lockdown was ineffective if you want,but then you need to come up with a reasonable alternative.

    Bottom line is that for whatever reason,I am guessing a combination of all measures,the number of deaths is significantly lower than the worst case scenario. Which it would be if those measures were having any affect.

    Unless of course you have looked at the scientists modelling and spotted a line that says "multiply by 5"
    I've never said there was a hoax. 3 million dead worldwide as a direct result of Covid? You can prove that of course and you can show evidence that not a single one of them would have died of pre existing conditions in the same time period had Covid not come along? Didn't think so. Can you tell me how many would have died in the same time frame if lock down didn't happen? Didn't think so. Just throw out 3 million dead and s=try to scare me? I don't get scared easily.

    Scientists model based on what could happen, not on what will happen as that's just not possible it's speculation. The usually get things right to within a 10% plus or minus because they have evidence and history of previous samples and occurrences - they had nothing for this so they guessed. They guessed very, very wrong.

    Lockdown was only a fraction as effective as it will be claimed to have been because a huge number of us never deviated from our normal routines. I carried on doing all the things I normally do and never got ill for example. My son isolated, locked down and got ill, he was in bed 'a bit fluey' for three days then back to normal.

    Scientists will have applied a factor to their initial estimates to form a 'worst comes to worst' scenario - I'm guessing now and I'm guessing a factor of 5. If they didn't multiply their original estimates by a factor to estimate worst case they need shot. 5 is a normal number by which to multiply as a factor of safety.

    Now, waken up.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    I've never said there was a hoax. 3 million dead worldwide as a direct result of Covid? You can prove that of course and you can show evidence that not a single one of them would have died of pre existing conditions in the same time period had Covid not come along? Didn't think so. Can you tell me how many would have died in the same time frame if lock down didn't happen? Didn't think so. Just throw out 3 million dead and s=try to scare me? I don't get scared easily.

    Scientists model based on what could happen, not on what will happen as that's just not possible it's speculation. The usually get things right to within a 10% plus or minus because they have evidence and history of previous samples and occurrences - they had nothing for this so they guessed. They guessed very, very wrong.

    Lockdown was only a fraction as effective as it will be claimed to have been because a huge number of us never deviated from our normal routines. I carried on doing all the things I normally do and never got ill for example. My son isolated, locked down and got ill, he was in bed 'a bit fluey' for three days then back to normal.

    Scientists will have applied a factor to their initial estimates to form a 'worst comes to worst' scenario - I'm guessing now and I'm guessing a factor of 5. If they didn't multiply their original estimates by a factor to estimate worst case they need shot. 5 is a normal number by which to multiply as a factor of safety.

    Now, waken up.
    If we have the estimates of deaths and we have the number of deaths recorded, what is the factor needed to explain the difference? I watched Alastair Campbell on Good Morning Britain TV today, what a replacement for Piers Morgan he might be. Wanted to know when the Government Inquiry into how the pandemic has been handled would start. Matt Hancock, not unreasonably to my mind, pointed out that it wasn't over yet, that there were still lessons being learned and it was too early to say. Not good enough answer, and so it goes on.

    Even on here, where were are coming from a base of friendship because we support the same team, these discussions don't get anywhere. I think those who oppose lockdowns have a point, but I can't think of an alternative form of action that would be as effective. We need to find a new approach, but I can't see one happening soon while those who are in charge stay in charge.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    17,242
    Quote Originally Posted by BCram View Post
    If we have the estimates of deaths and we have the number of deaths recorded, what is the factor needed to explain the difference? I watched Alastair Campbell on Good Morning Britain TV today, what a replacement for Piers Morgan he might be. Wanted to know when the Government Inquiry into how the pandemic has been handled would start. Matt Hancock, not unreasonably to my mind, pointed out that it wasn't over yet, that there were still lessons being learned and it was too early to say. Not good enough answer, and so it goes on.

    Even on here, where were are coming from a base of friendship because we support the same team, these discussions don't get anywhere. I think those who oppose lockdowns have a point, but I can't think of an alternative form of action that would be as effective. We need to find a new approach, but I can't see one happening soon while those who are in charge stay in charge.
    Cases were falling before every lockdown had time to take effect.

    A base of friendship......I love that Bcram.....tainted loves me, he just don't know it.😂

    Not sure if it was you or someone else who said they were getting jag to go on hols....I got mine in case I want to move....but it's no really working out like that.😶

    I wish everybody defended this freedom and liberty a bit more vigorously because huge pressure gonna come to lockdown again.

    Reading today 57% of Scots want to keep social distancing.....who the **** is doing that now.....every time I'm in a supermarket or shop it's as it was.....love to know who does these surveys.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    That's because they will have applied a factor of five when calculating their worst case scenarios, they then scare everyone by issuing only worst case scenarios - hence they say 'could be' or 'can be' or 'might be' never 'expected to be' or 'will be' or 'shall be'.

    And the governments and pubic bought the scaremongering. Meanwhile the same scientists are raking it in through worldwide sales of vaccines that they developed and licensed. Did someone not predict twelve months ago that we'd be here at this point? Forced vaccines and vaccine passports - but then I'm just a Covidiot so what do I know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    I've never said there was a hoax. 3 million dead worldwide as a direct result of Covid? You can prove that of course and you can show evidence that not a single one of them would have died of pre existing conditions in the same time period had Covid not come along? Didn't think so. Can you tell me how many would have died in the same time frame if lock down didn't happen? Didn't think so. Just throw out 3 million dead and s=try to scare me? I don't get scared easily.

    Scientists model based on what could happen, not on what will happen as that's just not possible it's speculation. The usually get things right to within a 10% plus or minus because they have evidence and history of previous samples and occurrences - they had nothing for this so they guessed. They guessed very, very wrong.

    Lockdown was only a fraction as effective as it will be claimed to have been because a huge number of us never deviated from our normal routines. I carried on doing all the things I normally do and never got ill for example. My son isolated, locked down and got ill, he was in bed 'a bit fluey' for three days then back to normal.

    Scientists will have applied a factor to their initial estimates to form a 'worst comes to worst' scenario - I'm guessing now and I'm guessing a factor of 5. If they didn't multiply their original estimates by a factor to estimate worst case they need shot. 5 is a normal number by which to multiply as a factor of safety.

    Now, waken up.
    Sorry I forgot,3 million dead hit by a bus,or of being obese.....

    And I don't know any scientist who would get a number,then just multiply it by 5 for shiggles,compared to the one ex RAF guy who just makes stuff up then posts it repeatedly,claiming if he says it more than once,that proves he is right. He isnt

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,635
    Quote Originally Posted by grantzer View Post
    Sorry I forgot,3 million dead hit by a bus,or of being obese.....

    And I don't know any scientist who would get a number,then just multiply it by 5 for shiggles,compared to the one ex RAF guy who just makes stuff up then posts it repeatedly,claiming if he says it more than once,that proves he is right. He isnt
    That's one ex RAF guy with a science and statistics based first degree and who wrote a masters dissertation on change management that's quoted as a reference to this day if you don't mind. Or doesn't any of that matter because I'm only a thick ex RAF - um, oh of course, you don't even know what my job was in the RAF.

    That's the problem with picking up on one element of a person and judging them purely on that element; there's usually significantly (that's at the 95% acceptance level by the way) more to that person.

    I don't have to prove anything in this discussion because all I've done is guess and assume a safety factor of 5 being applied to projections, you're the one that gave a definitive figure of 3 million dead that can't be backed up or proven. But I see you've backed away from that assertion after being challenged on it.

    It's difficult to put forward a coherent argument if you focus too narrowly on one characteristic, can't prove what you quote as fact and can't back up your data.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,635
    Quote Originally Posted by BCram View Post
    If we have the estimates of deaths and we have the number of deaths recorded, what is the factor needed to explain the difference? I watched Alastair Campbell on Good Morning Britain TV today, what a replacement for Piers Morgan he might be. Wanted to know when the Government Inquiry into how the pandemic has been handled would start. Matt Hancock, not unreasonably to my mind, pointed out that it wasn't over yet, that there were still lessons being learned and it was too early to say. Not good enough answer, and so it goes on.

    Even on here, where were are coming from a base of friendship because we support the same team, these discussions don't get anywhere. I think those who oppose lockdowns have a point, but I can't think of an alternative form of action that would be as effective. We need to find a new approach, but I can't see one happening soon while those who are in charge stay in charge.
    You don't apply a factor to explain a difference between known figures BCram. That would become a direct comparison. If I had the actual figures, and I could be bothered, I could calculate the error. In all honesty though I couldn't really be bothered.

    I'm not sure I have many friends on here. One in particular that RRoS named, who's been very quiet (but that could be because I have him 'on ignore') really doesn't like me even though I have no idea who he is and we've never met. Can't think why he dislikes me so much and I genuinely hope he's OK and that RRoS hasn't driven him to an asylum or worse.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    That's because they will have applied a factor of five when calculating their worst case scenarios, they then scare everyone by issuing only worst case scenarios - hence they say 'could be' or 'can be' or 'might be' never 'expected to be' or 'will be' or 'shall be'.

    And the governments and pubic bought the scaremongering. Meanwhile the same scientists are raking it in through worldwide sales of vaccines that they developed and licensed. Did someone not predict twelve months ago that we'd be here at this point? Forced vaccines and vaccine passports - but then I'm just a Covidiot so what do I know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    That's one ex RAF guy with a science and statistics based first degree and who wrote a masters dissertation on change management that's quoted as a reference to this day if you don't mind. Or doesn't any of that matter because I'm only a thick ex RAF - um, oh of course, you don't even know what my job was in the RAF.

    That's the problem with picking up on one element of a person and judging them purely on that element; there's usually significantly (that's at the 95% acceptance level by the way) more to that person.

    I don't have to prove anything in this discussion because all I've done is guess and assume a safety factor of 5 being applied to projections, you're the one that gave a definitive figure of 3 million dead that can't be backed up or proven. But I see you've backed away from that assertion after being challenged on it.

    It's difficult to put forward a coherent argument if you focus too narrowly on one characteristic, can't prove what you quote as fact and can't back up your data.
    Nope,I am saying 3 million dead because that's the number.

    So your argument is that scientist can't possibly come up with an accurate outcome because they have never faced this scenario before, but at the same time scientists got the number spot on,THEN multiplied it by five just to scare an ex RAF man who doesn't scare easily because he has a degree in a science, with some statistics, but he is guessing.

    So here is a test for you.....

    Do you agree covid is real?
    Do you agree people have died due to covid?
    2 yes answers means you should be a little scared, even with your degree in a science. The only people who are not scared are the ones that are too stupid to know better, even if it's only a little bit.

    And being quoted as a reference,how do you know? And do they quote you positively or negatively,and how do you know? And when they quote you,is it in any subject to do with infectious diseases?
    Does a dissertation in change management qualify you to second guess experts in infectious diseases?

    When you said you were a covidiot,you got three too many letters in there

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,635
    Quote Originally Posted by grantzer View Post
    Nope,I am saying 3 million dead because that's the number.

    So your argument is that scientist can't possibly come up with an accurate outcome because they have never faced this scenario before, but at the same time scientists got the number spot on,THEN multiplied it by five just to scare an ex RAF man who doesn't scare easily because he has a degree in a science, with some statistics, but he is guessing.

    So here is a test for you.....

    Do you agree covid is real?
    Do you agree people have died due to covid?
    2 yes answers means you should be a little scared, even with your degree in a science. The only people who are not scared are the ones that are too stupid to know better, even if it's only a little bit.

    And being quoted as a reference,how do you know? And do they quote you positively or negatively,and how do you know? And when they quote you,is it in any subject to do with infectious diseases?
    Does a dissertation in change management qualify you to second guess experts in infectious diseases?

    When you said you were a covidiot,you got three too many letters in there
    Losing the tattie and resorting to insults will never help your case.

    Goodbye.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    That's because they will have applied a factor of five when calculating their worst case scenarios, they then scare everyone by issuing only worst case scenarios - hence they say 'could be' or 'can be' or 'might be' never 'expected to be' or 'will be' or 'shall be'.

    And the governments and pubic bought the scaremongering. Meanwhile the same scientists are raking it in through worldwide sales of vaccines that they developed and licensed. Did someone not predict twelve months ago that we'd be here at this point? Forced vaccines and vaccine passports - but then I'm just a Covidiot so what do I know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    Losing the tattie and resorting to insults will never help your case.

    Goodbye.
    Well thats me telt.

    When you can't defeat the truth,avoid the debate. Well played

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    9,426
    Quote Originally Posted by grantzer View Post
    Nope,I am saying 3 million dead because that's the number.

    So your argument is that scientist can't possibly come up with an accurate outcome because they have never faced this scenario before, but at the same time scientists got the number spot on,THEN multiplied it by five just to scare an ex RAF man who doesn't scare easily because he has a degree in a science, with some statistics, but he is guessing.

    So here is a test for you.....

    Do you agree covid is real?
    Do you agree people have died due to covid?
    2 yes answers means you should be a little scared, even with your degree in a science. The only people who are not scared are the ones that are too stupid to know better, even if it's only a little bit.

    And being quoted as a reference,how do you know? And do they quote you positively or negatively,and how do you know? And when they quote you,is it in any subject to do with infectious diseases?
    Does a dissertation in change management qualify you to second guess experts in infectious diseases?

    When you said you were a covidiot,you got three too many letters in there
    Scared of what ?

    Hate to have you beside me on the hill at pittodrie after the match

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •