RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
As opposed to announcing a delivery of 400,000 gowns on the same day an order was placed. Of which only a fraction were initially delivered and which turned out to be not fit for purpose. And making the announcement despite being told by the DHSC not to. That wasn’t at all headline grabbing click bait sort of stuff. At least the guardian article is based in fact.

Mells, your cheerleading for this government has become crass. The BMA has suggested 50% of doctors have had to source their own PPE. That is not a few localised problems.

I’m on record on this very thread being critical of the govt messaging at times. I can see things from both sides despite having an obvious bias towards the Conservatives, though this govt is the reason my Con membership was not renewed. In fact, in my first post this morning I put “Plenty of issues on which to criticise govt”. That doesn’t speak of crass cheerleading but, given you think The Times are plotting to replace Boris with Gove, I’ll take your accusation with a pinch of salt.
The BMA gave their own figures, other sources gave others. Truth be told, from what I’ve read, the major issue is hospitals hoarding kit and a NHS run distribution system that wasn’t fit for purpose.

Chortle

“Truth be told...”. Because anything you agree with is an absolute truth, everything else is conspiracy and requires the wearing of a tin foil hat.

If the theory is that The Times are looking to replace Boris because he wrote for The Telegraph with Gove because....well, you get the picture.....then, yes, tinfoil is a requirement.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Plenty of issues on which to criticise govt, NHS and PHE for but I’m not convinced this is one of them.

If you're so forgiving as to think PPE isn't an area to criticise the government, it's difficult to see what you'd hold them to account for.

Despite being only interested in precise truths, I’m sure you’ll be able to extrapolate.

You're getting a bit incoherent now.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: If you're so forgiving as to think PPE isn't an area to criticise the government, it's difficult to see what you'd hold them to account for.

Despite being only interested in precise truths, I’m sure you’ll be able to extrapolate.

You're getting a bit incoherent now.

I’ll explain then. You once grandstanded that you are only interested in precise truths, I’ll ignore the fact that a truth is automatically precise, yet you now educate us with your extrapolated death totals, when you cannot know whether they are precise or the truth. It was merely flippancy due to frustration with myself for getting drawn back in to this discussion amongst a group of people who know virtually nothing of what is happening. I include myself in that; however, I do have numerous sources in the medical profession, both front line and back office, whose anecdotal evidence tallies with my assertions over PPE.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Despite being only interested in precise truths, I’m sure you’ll be able to extrapolate.

You're getting a bit incoherent now.

I’ll explain then. You once grandstanded that you are only interested in precise truths, I’ll ignore the fact that a truth is automatically precise, yet you now educate us with your extrapolated death totals, when you cannot know whether they are precise or the truth. It was merely flippancy due to frustration with myself for getting drawn back in to this discussion amongst a group of people who know virtually nothing of what is happening. I include myself in that; however, I do have numerous sources in the medical profession, both front line and back office, whose anecdotal evidence tallies with my assertions over PPE.

When did I say I am only interested in precise truths?

If truth is automatically precise, do you therefore think that nothing can be "approximately true"?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You're getting a bit incoherent now.

I’ll explain then. You once grandstanded that you are only interested in precise truths, I’ll ignore the fact that a truth is automatically precise, yet you now educate us with your extrapolated death totals, when you cannot know whether they are precise or the truth. It was merely flippancy due to frustration with myself for getting drawn back in to this discussion amongst a group of people who know virtually nothing of what is happening. I include myself in that; however, I do have numerous sources in the medical profession, both front line and back office, whose anecdotal evidence tallies with my assertions over PPE.

When did I say I am only interested in precise truths?

If truth is automatically precise, do you therefore think that nothing can be "approximately true"?

You may not have said ‘only’, unsurprisingly I can’t remember. However, if your going to demand the precise truth/precisely true in one discussion it seems odd to not require whilst ‘extrapolating’ your own figures. Ironically, I think you first mentioned it when saying the govt ‘promised’ delivery of the PPE from Turkey by Monday which was precisely false.

Something is either true or it isn’t. I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth, but that doesn’t apply when discussing the delivery date of PPE.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:"despite erroneous reports and a small number of localised problems, the NHS has not suffered a PPE shortage."

you in this instance, unless you're hanging your hat on the caveat of a 'small number of localised problems'

Is it impossible to expect that there won't be some localised small scale problems with an effort like this set up so quickly? We seem to expect perfection from people working under pressure, which is bonkers. The military often brings clarity to problems like this, but anyone who has served will tell you that supply issues happen even when processes are robust.

The issue here would it didn't need to be quite to rushed a response. We've had the issue of access to PPE hanging over for at least a decade, the Tories can drop part of the lack of a response onto Labour but seeing as they've been in office since 2010 their decision not to address PPE is their decision over quite a long time, and even with the scramble response we have had we came late to the party.

I don't doubt there are always going to be problems, but from my point of view I'd be talking less about how we haven't had problems, and more about how they've screwed the pooch. Granted I lean towards being critical even if people are doing well

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’ll explain then. You once grandstanded that you are only interested in precise truths, I’ll ignore the fact that a truth is automatically precise, yet you now educate us with your extrapolated death totals, when you cannot know whether they are precise or the truth. It was merely flippancy due to frustration with myself for getting drawn back in to this discussion amongst a group of people who know virtually nothing of what is happening. I include myself in that; however, I do have numerous sources in the medical profession, both front line and back office, whose anecdotal evidence tallies with my assertions over PPE.

When did I say I am only interested in precise truths?

If truth is automatically precise, do you therefore think that nothing can be "approximately true"?

You may not have said ‘only’, unsurprisingly I can’t remember. However, if your going to demand the precise truth/precisely true in one discussion it seems odd to not require whilst ‘extrapolating’ your own figures. Ironically, I think you first mentioned it when saying the govt ‘promised’ delivery of the PPE from Turkey by Monday which was precisely false.

Something is either true or it isn’t. I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth, but that doesn’t apply when discussing the delivery date of PPE.

As you say, you can't remember. But that didn't stop you claiming it was true in your earlier post. I'm not going to waste time discussing points which rest on your faulty memory.

You're conflating logical truth with scientific accuracy. In certain systems of thought, there are only true statements and false statements. But in most others, eg science, engineering, medicine, many areas of maths, there are approximations. That's what the numbers of cases, the numbers of deaths, the infection rates are: approximations. They are useful, they have meaning, and often they are the closest we can get to the "truth". Do you agree?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: When did I say I am only interested in precise truths?

If truth is automatically precise, do you therefore think that nothing can be "approximately true"?

You may not have said ‘only’, unsurprisingly I can’t remember. However, if your going to demand the precise truth/precisely true in one discussion it seems odd to not require whilst ‘extrapolating’ your own figures. Ironically, I think you first mentioned it when saying the govt ‘promised’ delivery of the PPE from Turkey by Monday which was precisely false.

Something is either true or it isn’t. I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth, but that doesn’t apply when discussing the delivery date of PPE.

As you say, you can't remember. But that didn't stop you claiming it was true in your earlier post. I'm not going to waste time discussing points which rest on your faulty memory.

You're conflating logical truth with scientific accuracy. In certain systems of thought, there are only true statements and false statements. But in most others, eg science, engineering, medicine, many areas of maths, there are approximations. That's what the numbers of cases, the numbers of deaths, the infection rates are: approximations. They are useful, they have meaning, and often they are the closest we can get to the "truth". Do you agree?

Regardless of whether I remember you saying ‘only’, the hypocrisy of demanding the truth whilst perpetuating a falsehood, that the govt promised a delivery date, has not been forgotten, even by my faulty memory.

I’m not conflating anything. How can I be when I first stated there is a mathematical concept of approximate truth. You seem to have moved from ‘approximately true’, which is is poor grasp of the English language, to telling me about approximate truth which, again, I’d already mentioned so, I’ve no idea why you thought you then needed to tell me about it. Do some more reading on approximate truth. It really has nothing to do with your simplistic extrapolations.

As I said previously, I am bored with a bunch of relative nobodies going round in circles on a subject we barely understand. The one person with any first hand knowledge of the situation has come on here to state that the reasons for PPE shortages are not as stated in the media but most on here continue to believe otherwise. I’ll leave you to your precisely true extrapolations.

I'm perfectly happy to believe there are a number of reasons for PPE shortages, some of which may never have been reported. A number of people will have responsibilities in this area, a huge number of which will see the buck stop with the government around said shortages

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You may not have said ‘only’, unsurprisingly I can’t remember. However, if your going to demand the precise truth/precisely true in one discussion it seems odd to not require whilst ‘extrapolating’ your own figures. Ironically, I think you first mentioned it when saying the govt ‘promised’ delivery of the PPE from Turkey by Monday which was precisely false.

Something is either true or it isn’t. I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth, but that doesn’t apply when discussing the delivery date of PPE.

As you say, you can't remember. But that didn't stop you claiming it was true in your earlier post. I'm not going to waste time discussing points which rest on your faulty memory.

You're conflating logical truth with scientific accuracy. In certain systems of thought, there are only true statements and false statements. But in most others, eg science, engineering, medicine, many areas of maths, there are approximations. That's what the numbers of cases, the numbers of deaths, the infection rates are: approximations. They are useful, they have meaning, and often they are the closest we can get to the "truth". Do you agree?

Regardless of whether I remember you saying ‘only’, the hypocrisy of demanding the truth whilst perpetuating a falsehood, that the govt promised a delivery date, has not been forgotten, even by my faulty memory.

I’m not conflating anything. How can I be when I first stated there is a mathematical concept of approximate truth. You seem to have moved from ‘approximately true’, which is is poor grasp of the English language, to telling me about approximate truth which, again, I’d already mentioned so, I’ve no idea why you thought you then needed to tell me about it. Do some more reading on approximate truth. It really has nothing to do with your simplistic extrapolations.

As I said previously, I am bored with a bunch of relative nobodies going round in circles on a subject we barely understand. The one person with any first hand knowledge of the situation has come on here to state that the reasons for PPE shortages are not as stated in the media but most on here continue to believe otherwise. I’ll leave you to your precisely true extrapolations.

You said "Something is either true or it isn’t". And then you said "I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth". What am I supposed to make of this? Are you contradicting yourself? Are you saying there may be approximate truth, but only in mathematics? It's difficult to discuss things with you because I'm not clear what you're trying to say.

If you're interested, what I'm trying to do with my extrapolations is to remove systematic errors from the government's figures. Their numbers exclude deaths resulting from Covid-19 where no test was taken. So they systematically underestimate the true figure. I appreciate we'll never find the true figure, indeed there would always be disagreement over whether some cases are "really" caused by the virus (which is why I give the Covid-19 death certificate number and the excess deaths number separately). But at least I've removed one very large systematic error, so we're much closer to the correct number. There's no point in trying to get into confidence intervals or other measures of error because the government and ONS don't give such measures with their figures. So we can only aim for the best, unbiased estimate of the true number. Using the government's number alone gives a big underestimate because of the requirement for a test, and using the ONS figures alone gives a big underestimate because of the delay. Does that make sense?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: As you say, you can't remember. But that didn't stop you claiming it was true in your earlier post. I'm not going to waste time discussing points which rest on your faulty memory.

You're conflating logical truth with scientific accuracy. In certain systems of thought, there are only true statements and false statements. But in most others, eg science, engineering, medicine, many areas of maths, there are approximations. That's what the numbers of cases, the numbers of deaths, the infection rates are: approximations. They are useful, they have meaning, and often they are the closest we can get to the "truth". Do you agree?

Regardless of whether I remember you saying ‘only’, the hypocrisy of demanding the truth whilst perpetuating a falsehood, that the govt promised a delivery date, has not been forgotten, even by my faulty memory.

I’m not conflating anything. How can I be when I first stated there is a mathematical concept of approximate truth. You seem to have moved from ‘approximately true’, which is is poor grasp of the English language, to telling me about approximate truth which, again, I’d already mentioned so, I’ve no idea why you thought you then needed to tell me about it. Do some more reading on approximate truth. It really has nothing to do with your simplistic extrapolations.

As I said previously, I am bored with a bunch of relative nobodies going round in circles on a subject we barely understand. The one person with any first hand knowledge of the situation has come on here to state that the reasons for PPE shortages are not as stated in the media but most on here continue to believe otherwise. I’ll leave you to your precisely true extrapolations.

You said "Something is either true or it isn’t". And then you said "I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth". What am I supposed to make of this? Are you contradicting yourself? Are you saying there may be approximate truth, but only in mathematics? It's difficult to discuss things with you because I'm not clear what you're trying to say.

If you're interested, what I'm trying to do with my extrapolations is to remove systematic errors from the government's figures. Their numbers exclude deaths resulting from Covid-19 where no test was taken. So they systematically underestimate the true figure. I appreciate we'll never find the true figure, indeed there would always be disagreement over whether some cases are "really" caused by the virus (which is why I give the Covid-19 death certificate number and the excess deaths number separately). But at least I've removed one very large systematic error, so we're much closer to the correct number. There's no point in trying to get into confidence intervals or other measures of error because the government and ONS don't give such measures with their figures. So we can only aim for the best, unbiased estimate of the true number. Using the government's number alone gives a big underestimate because of the requirement for a test, and using the ONS figures alone gives a big underestimate because of the delay. Does that make sense?

Unless you’re an expert in the field, I’m not interested. That’s my entire point.

It seems that over 65% of cases US-wide can be attributed to spread from NYC. That is, over 65% of cases throughout the country have virus that has significant sequence homology with the dominant NYC cluster. This is directly attributable to the painfully slow response to curbing domestic travel, which is still going on to a degree. Every place that "opens up" before the virus has been contained will seed the thing like a mother fucker. What a surprise.

If you're going to drop a ball you might as well drop an anvil right onto your foot

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Regardless of whether I remember you saying ‘only’, the hypocrisy of demanding the truth whilst perpetuating a falsehood, that the govt promised a delivery date, has not been forgotten, even by my faulty memory.

I’m not conflating anything. How can I be when I first stated there is a mathematical concept of approximate truth. You seem to have moved from ‘approximately true’, which is is poor grasp of the English language, to telling me about approximate truth which, again, I’d already mentioned so, I’ve no idea why you thought you then needed to tell me about it. Do some more reading on approximate truth. It really has nothing to do with your simplistic extrapolations.

As I said previously, I am bored with a bunch of relative nobodies going round in circles on a subject we barely understand. The one person with any first hand knowledge of the situation has come on here to state that the reasons for PPE shortages are not as stated in the media but most on here continue to believe otherwise. I’ll leave you to your precisely true extrapolations.

You said "Something is either true or it isn’t". And then you said "I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth". What am I supposed to make of this? Are you contradicting yourself? Are you saying there may be approximate truth, but only in mathematics? It's difficult to discuss things with you because I'm not clear what you're trying to say.

If you're interested, what I'm trying to do with my extrapolations is to remove systematic errors from the government's figures. Their numbers exclude deaths resulting from Covid-19 where no test was taken. So they systematically underestimate the true figure. I appreciate we'll never find the true figure, indeed there would always be disagreement over whether some cases are "really" caused by the virus (which is why I give the Covid-19 death certificate number and the excess deaths number separately). But at least I've removed one very large systematic error, so we're much closer to the correct number. There's no point in trying to get into confidence intervals or other measures of error because the government and ONS don't give such measures with their figures. So we can only aim for the best, unbiased estimate of the true number. Using the government's number alone gives a big underestimate because of the requirement for a test, and using the ONS figures alone gives a big underestimate because of the delay. Does that make sense?

Unless you’re an expert in the field, I’m not interested. That’s my entire point.

You're only interested in expert opinion? So what are you doing on this site?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You said "Something is either true or it isn’t". And then you said "I believe there is a concept in mathematics of approximate truth". What am I supposed to make of this? Are you contradicting yourself? Are you saying there may be approximate truth, but only in mathematics? It's difficult to discuss things with you because I'm not clear what you're trying to say.

If you're interested, what I'm trying to do with my extrapolations is to remove systematic errors from the government's figures. Their numbers exclude deaths resulting from Covid-19 where no test was taken. So they systematically underestimate the true figure. I appreciate we'll never find the true figure, indeed there would always be disagreement over whether some cases are "really" caused by the virus (which is why I give the Covid-19 death certificate number and the excess deaths number separately). But at least I've removed one very large systematic error, so we're much closer to the correct number. There's no point in trying to get into confidence intervals or other measures of error because the government and ONS don't give such measures with their figures. So we can only aim for the best, unbiased estimate of the true number. Using the government's number alone gives a big underestimate because of the requirement for a test, and using the ONS figures alone gives a big underestimate because of the delay. Does that make sense?

Unless you’re an expert in the field, I’m not interested. That’s my entire point.

You're only interested in expert opinion? So what are you doing on this site?

A question I’ve been asking myself repeatedly for the last week or so.

He's here for content like this...


Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yay, they've released one of the SAGE reports.
It makes for fascinating reading, and show that the scientific community was so impressively of one mind.

Don't worry, it was only a full third of the document that was 100% redacted

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Plenty of issues on which to criticise govt, NHS and PHE for but I’m not convinced this is one of them.

If you're so forgiving as to think PPE isn't an area to criticise the government, it's difficult to see what you'd hold them to account for.

This is politics. If you incessantly criticize the government on everything, you will be ignored on the big things. When there are motivating factors, like there are with PPE, hold off. Then with the Sage redactions, you can launch both barrels.

Pick and choose

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Plenty of issues on which to criticise govt, NHS and PHE for but I’m not convinced this is one of them.

If you're so forgiving as to think PPE isn't an area to criticise the government, it's difficult to see what you'd hold them to account for.

This is politics. If you incessantly criticize the government on everything, you will be ignored on the big things. When there are motivating factors, like there are with PPE, hold off. Then with the Sage redactions, you can launch both barrels.

Pick and choose

Is that for us, or for the press?

I can see your point but I can't agree. What would the criteria be for not reporting a story where there has been a government failing? In the case of PPE, lives are potentially at risk, and with the Sage redactions the government may be covering up an area where they diverged from being "guided by the science". Both seem like serious enough issues that they ought to be reported (assuming the stories have merit).

So now we're hoping people will walk and cycle more. And I wonder how this will actually work in practice, thinking back to those times I lived in Greenwich and worked at Canary Wharf, there really aren't that many options to walk/cycle and none that allow for social distancing unless you cycle into London cross a bridge and head back out, or head out and catch the Woolwich ferry before cycling back the other way.

And then when one arrives at work how often do you want to walk up to the 32nd floor?

For crossing the river there are also the Clipper services and the cable car, but they're not going to handle an extra 7 figure number of travellers per annum. The foot tunnels already handle millions of trips and we need more people to use them whilst having less crowding. Which will be tricky.

Maybe we're going to build more bridges

Digby wrote:So now we're hoping people will walk and cycle more. And I wonder how this will actually work in practice..

Seems quite appealing with current unusually clement weather - and only then for urban dwellers & others living close to work.
Many commuters travel from further afield and this is not realistic - especially factoring in older workers etc.
Safe distancing and public transport are diametric opposites that present a real barrier to a return to normal working -working from home will probably go into orbit.

Digby wrote:So now we're hoping people will walk and cycle more. And I wonder how this will actually work in practice, thinking back to those times I lived in Greenwich and worked at Canary Wharf, there really aren't that many options to walk/cycle and none that allow for social distancing unless you cycle into London cross a bridge and head back out, or head out and catch the Woolwich ferry before cycling back the other way.

And then when one arrives at work how often do you want to walk up to the 32nd floor?

For crossing the river there are also the Clipper services and the cable car, but they're not going to handle an extra 7 figure number of travellers per annum. The foot tunnels already handle millions of trips and we need more people to use them whilst having less crowding. Which will be tricky.

Maybe we're going to build more bridges

My commute is an 80 mile round trip up the M6. Looking forward to cycling that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: If you're so forgiving as to think PPE isn't an area to criticise the government, it's difficult to see what you'd hold them to account for.

This is politics. If you incessantly criticize the government on everything, you will be ignored on the big things. When there are motivating factors, like there are with PPE, hold off. Then with the Sage redactions, you can launch both barrels.

Pick and choose

Is that for us, or for the press?

I can see your point but I can't agree. What would the criteria be for not reporting a story where there has been a government failing? In the case of PPE, lives are potentially at risk, and with the Sage redactions the government may be covering up an area where they diverged from being "guided by the science". Both seem like serious enough issues that they ought to be reported (assuming the stories have merit).

It would be helpful if the media actually reported accurately and weren’t trying to make everything into a crisis. There have been cockups along the way, but the media reporting of this crisis has been largely infantile.

Thousands of doctors have completely run out of essential items of PPE in the latest devastating crisis to grip the NHS front line.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/c ... s-22002332

But as it’s a left wing paper it’s probably all projection.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:So now we're hoping people will walk and cycle more. And I wonder how this will actually work in practice, thinking back to those times I lived in Greenwich and worked at Canary Wharf, there really aren't that many options to walk/cycle and none that allow for social distancing unless you cycle into London cross a bridge and head back out, or head out and catch the Woolwich ferry before cycling back the other way.

And then when one arrives at work how often do you want to walk up to the 32nd floor?

For crossing the river there are also the Clipper services and the cable car, but they're not going to handle an extra 7 figure number of travellers per annum. The foot tunnels already handle millions of trips and we need more people to use them whilst having less crowding. Which will be tricky.

Maybe we're going to build more bridges

My commute is an 80 mile round trip up the M6. Looking forward to cycling that.

We might need to accept you only formerly had a role in life!

Actually if this thing proves damaging in the longer term length and model of a commute will prove a subject for debate, and whether one should take on a role if you can't walk/cycle