I don't think it's the same logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My reasoning above is that you're taking the integral from 0.32 to 0.32. The area under a point is 0, because it's a 1-dimensional object.
Printable View
I don't think it's the same logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My reasoning above is that you're taking the integral from 0.32 to 0.32. The area under a point is 0, because it's a 1-dimensional object.
Well, the only way to know the number is to have a closed, isolated population among which all relevant data is known.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So long as it's an open, ongoing process in a changing environment, the best we can do is apply prob stats. So long as new information is relevant to our analysis, we cannot know with 100% certainty any of our analysis is correct. But with clever application of prob stats, we can narrow the range of our analytical results to something practical to work with, and include our confidence in that range.
The only way to have 100% confidence is if you include all possible analytical outcomes. I.e. somewhere between 0% and 100% with 100% confidence. The only way to have 100% confidence with a smaller range is when all the data is in, and you're no longer projecting.
EDIT: actually... that assumes a potentially infinite population. For a finite population, you can already rule out that it can't be 0%. There's at least 1 positive, and a non-infinite amount of potential results to push that down to "vanishingly small."
Exactly. But the specific interval and the confidence in that interval is essential information. Just the interval is useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think it is the same logic. I was incorrectly assuming that any value is viable between two given numbers, let's say 0.31 and 0.33 for the sake of argument. There are an infinite amount of possible numbers in this range, so the probability of 0.32 precisely being the correct value is 0%, which incidentally is the same probability for any other precise value within the range. But the sum of all probabilities still adds up to 100%. It's similar to my other example because the numbers with a 9 in it compared to numbers without a 9 in it is essentially a one-dimensional dot on a line.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But my thinking is flawed because not all values between 0.31 and 0.33 are actually viable unless population is infinite, which it isn't. In this case it's 1544, but it can obviously never be infinite.
Knowing the value isn't the issue, is it? You say there's a 0% chance it's 0.32. If there's a non-infinite number of potential values for this number, how do we know the probability of it being precisely 0.32 is 0%?Quote:
Well, the only way to know the number is to have a closed, isolated population among which all relevant data is known.
A confidence interval is a problematic concept to begin with, but we'll save that for another day.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The point I was making is that ~.32% is much more likely than values near the outter bounds of the CI.
Yup, strictly speaking, without knowing the size of the population, the chance he's right in this specific instance is < 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
e.g. if there were 10m Austrians at the time the sample were drawn, and 32k of them had CV, it would be exactly 0.32%.
Regardless of any hand-waving about fluctuating population size and the lag between testing and results known, data collation, analysis, etc., the fact is it's possible for exactly .32% of a finite population to exist. And it follows from that that exactly .32% could have CV.
I mean if we're talking about a population, well let's not forget it constantly fluctuates. Whether precisely 0.32% of a population is a whole number is a question that will depend on when it's answered.
In fact, it's possible that from a mathematical pov, a large enough population is infinite, in the sense that it is constantly changing. Any value for the size of the population is representative of an infinitesimal amount of time, we do have infinities in the maths. The probability of 0.32% being a viable outcome within a range of time is 0%, because the number of times where 0.32 isn't viable will be infinitely more frequent than the number of times it is. When time is factored in, we're back to a dot on a line.
I'm just talking utter bollocks about maths here, but it makes sense to me.
Yeah, I get it. Well, the population goes up by one the moment someone is born, and goes down by one the moment someone dies. Even if you parse each 'moment' into a minute-long interval, that's 60x24 =1440 intervals a day. If an average lifespan is 75 years, the chance of a given person being born or dying in a given moment is 1 in 1440 x 365.25 x 75 = 1/~39.4 million. In a population of 10 m, that would be one birth and one death about every four minutes. So it's not exactly impossible to keep up.
For migration in/out of the country, there's some other value that is probably higher than +/- 1 every 4 minutes (obviously not these days, but in general). Still not a huge number I don't imagine.
Of course, you could also parse the moments into 1/infinity time intervals and you'd make the math impossible to do. To me though, all that proves is using an infinitesimal time interval is nonsensical in this kind of analysis.
I love statistics and data but dudes.
Wait, the set of numbers that don't contain a 9 isn't infinitely larger than the set of numbers that do contain a 9, is it? I can't conceptualize the math, but intuitive it seems it would be 9 times as large.
You're right that I'm wrong, but not right about the x9 intuition.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I said 0% of numbers have the number 9 in it, but actually the reverse is true; I meant to say 100% of numbers have the number 9 in it. I can attempt to demonstrate this... if we look at the numbers 1-10, then 1/10 have the number 9. But if we look at the numbers 1-100, then there's the ten 90s, and the 9 between 9 and 89, giving 19 in total. We went from 10% to 19%. Now let's look at 1-1000. Obviously there's 100 between 900 and 999, and as we already know there's 19 between 1-100, we can multiply that by 9 because it's the same between 200-299, then 300-399 etc... so we have 100+(19*9)=281, or 28,1%.
Now let's attempt 10000. There's 1000 between 9000 and 9999. Then there's 9 thousands, which each have 281, so 1000+(281*9)=3529, or 35.29%
100000... 10000 in the 9000+ range, then 9*3529=41761... 41.761%
This number is going to converge to 100% the deeper we go.
But thanks for helping me to realise I spazzed.
Another way to think about it is to take a random 58million digit number. What do you suppose the probability of it not having a 9 in it is? It's going to be pretty fucking small. Nearly half of all numbers have a 9 when we have a six digit number.
Apparently there's 4 people born every second, and 2 people die. Not quite the constant fluctuation I was thinking it would be. It's still pretty constant, but we can at least imagine a quarter of a second. I can dance to music at 240bpm, for fuck's sake. So there's not going to be any infinitesimals in a population of 7 billion. If thousands of people were being born every second, and we assume that the birth takes a second to happen, there probably isn't an instant in time where a birth is not in progress. But with 4 every seconds, there probably are gaps along the timeline. It's fuzzy, I just like thinking about the maths.Quote:
Yeah, I get it. Well, the population goes up by one the moment someone is born
Ah, right, silly mistake-- I failed to count the 10 9's in the 90's
I like all these fun tricks with infinites, but they also make my head hurt.
Yeah infinity does that. When there's an infinite number of potential outcomes, each with an equal probability of 0%, yet their sum equals 100%, that's basically another way of saying 0+0+0+0... repeated to infinity = 100. This is obviously ludicrous. You can also assume that 1 potential outcome has a 50% chance of happening, with a further infinite amount of equally likely outcomes at 0% each, making a sum total of 100%. So now 0+0+0+0 repeated to infinity = 50. It's nonsense, yet it's the only way it makes any sense. Any % value above 0 is illogical, because it immediately removes the infinity.
Of course what's really happening is simply that our mathematical models break down when infinity is considered.
If you want to hear good news, don't listen to this.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/...nars/episode-3
More fun with infinity: A normal curve is a density function and not a probability function. IOW, and as Mojo rightly (and pedantically) pointed out, many single points on the curve have 0% probability of being true in the real world.
In statistical terms, however, you may take two different points on the curve and compute their likelihood ratio, which is the density of one point on the curve relative to the other. The result is that there can be two points on the curve which for practical purposes are both impossible, but one is still x times more "likely" than the other.
Good times.
p.s. I don't know what CHF means.I just grabbed the first photo I could find that shows the concept of a likelihood ratio.
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/173/4/385/F5.large.jpg
CHF is congestive heart failure.
The maths doesn't surprise me though. We already know that infinity is not a value. One infinity can be bigger than another. The same is true of infinitesimals, which is what these 0% probabilities are. They actually have a >0% probability, but <x%, where x is the smallest possible number. This can be demonstrated by pointing out that the number 47 doesn't have a 9 in it, a 0% probability realised, since statistically, 100% of whole numbers have the number 9 in it.
One way of imagining different size infinities is to consider all the possible whole numbers vs all the possible even numbers. Both are infinite sets, but the former set is twice as big as the latter set. A simple, but logical example.
I don't like that at all. I totally get the "intuitive" part of it, but I just feel that's our puny brain trying to accommodate an unintuitive concept. They both go on forever, one just moves along twice as fast. Doesn't make it bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not exactly. There are some points along the curve that have a > 0 probability of happening (e.g., a score of 25% of n=100 would be exactly 25, and so can occur with p > 0) but they are surrounded by points that do have 0 probability (e.g., all the values from 25.000001 to 25.99999% out of n=100 are impossible; thus all have a p = 0). The only sensible way to use such curves is to consider an interval and compute the cumulative density within that interval. For practical purposes, a statistical curve like the normal curve is a smoothed out version of the truth, where the p > 0 and p = 0 neighboring values are collapsed to reflect an average for a certain interval centred on a given point in the curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I could see a third ways of looking at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ong: If set A is a subset of set B, it must be smaller.
coco: If set A and set B both go on forever, they must be the same size.
poop: If both set A and set B go on to infinity, you can't really compare their sizes in any meaningful way.
I wouldn't say they're the same, rather that "size" is a concept poorly compatible with infinity.
In that case, we're on the same page then.
Well yes, but some infinities are still "bigger" than others, in some cases infinitely bigger. The example I gave showed two infinities, one twice as big as the other. Now consider the whole numbers vs the real numbers. Obviously, the whole numbers is an infinite set, but we also know there's an infinite amount of real numbers between 1 and 2. So the set of real numbers is infinitely bigger than the set of whole numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I agree size is a difficult concept to grasp when speaking about infinity, but that doesn't mean infinity doesn't have relative size. There are different types of infinities... namely countable and uncountable. I'll let numberphile explain this, because it's easier to grasp when you see it written down, and explained by a mathematician.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0
I feel like they're wrong. Doesn't really resonate within me. Not a fan.
Fair enough, but understand that you're calling a mathematician wrong, not me. It's rather like when I argue science is wrong about something, which I'm sure I have done plenty of times for the sake of debate.
Anyway, you clearly didn't watch it, because it's 7+ minutes long and you replied 3 minutes after I posted.
All I got from that video is that thinking too much about infinity will put you in a mental institution.
Seems about right.
I hadn't seen this one before, but I've seen several similar ones. Cantor can suck my nuts. Think of the numbers as serieses that go on forever. That's their "length", infinite. Different serieses expand further faster, but saying one or the other is longer is pointless. What they're describing is that some infinities are "wider" or "faster", but that doesn't make them "bigger", since all of them are exactly as big as possible and then some.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is one of those thing where neither of us are wrong and neither of us are right. I'm not sure if that makes it an appealing thing to discuss, or unappealing.
Here's a (admittedly tenuous) real life example. Black holes. They warp spacetime infinitely. But a bigger black hole warps spacetime more than a small black hole. That's a bigger infinity.
Is an infinitely large tiger bigger than an infinitely large mouse?
On a more topical math question, how could you do mass testing most efficiently by having multiple people take the same CV test?
https://theconversation.com/the-math...box=1586526417
There are no infinitely large tigers or mice, however there are infinitely warped regions of spacetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's also no infinitely large collections of numbers afaik. So the question stands.
Of course there are infinitely large collections of numbers. The set of rational numbers, the set of irrational numbers, the set of whole numbers, the set of real numbers, the set of integers, all of these are infinite sets of numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I can still answer your question though. No.
Let's take two perfect circles of different sizes. Does the bigger circle have more sides? Well if we consider two squares, both the small and large one have four sides each. In the same sense, both the circles with have the same sized infinite number of sides. The closer to perfect the circle is, the closer to accurate pi is, the more sides it has. But we can never have a different sized infinity when it comes to how many sides a perfect circle has. It's the same infinity as the whole numbers. The circle might be bigger, but the infinity isn't.
I'll just assume the tiger/mouse example follows the same logic.
Solid reporting on how badly the UK gov't fucked up their response to CV
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true
Quote:
According to one senior Conservative Party politician, who was officially briefed as the crisis unfolded, the close involvement in the response to the coronavirus of the same scientific advisers and civil servants who drew up the flu plan may have created a "cognitive bias."
"We had in our minds that COVID-19 was a nasty flu and needed to be treated as such," he said. "The implication was it was a disease that could not be stopped and that it was ultimately not that deadly."
Quote:
After developing a test for the new virus by January 10, health officials adopted a centralised approach to its deployment, initially assigning a single public laboratory in north London to perform the tests. But, according to later government statements, there was no wider plan envisaged to make use of hundreds of laboratories across the country, both public and private, that could have been recruited.
According to emails and more than a dozen scientists interviewed by Reuters, the government issued no requests to labs for assistance with staff or testing equipment until the middle of March, when many abruptly received requests to hand over nucleic acid extraction instruments, used in testing. An executive at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford said he could have carried out up to 1,000 tests per day from February. But the call never came.
Quote:
Nor was there an effective effort to expand the supply of ventilators. The Department of Health told Reuters in a statement that the government started talking to manufacturers of ventilators about procuring extra supplies in February. But it was not until March 16, after it was clear supplies could run out, that Johnson launched an appeal to industry to help ramp up production.
Charles Bellm, managing director of Intersurgical, a global supplier of medical ventilation products based outside London, said he has been contacted by more than a dozen governments around the world, including France, New Zealand and Indonesia. But there had been no contact from the British government. "I find it somewhat surprising, I have spoken to a lot of other governments," he said.
Quote:
Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, who chaired SAGE, said in a BBC interview on March 13 that the plan was to simply control the pace of infection. The government had, for now, rejected what he called "eye-catching measures" like stopping mass gatherings such as football games or closing schools.
Quote:
The catalyst for a policy reversal came on March 16 with the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson's Imperial College team. It predicted that, unconstrained, the virus could kill 510,000 people. Even the government's "mitigation" approach could lead to 250,000 deaths and intensive care units being overwhelmed at least eight times over.
Imperial's prediction of over half a million deaths was no different from the report by the government's own pandemic modelling committee two weeks earlier. Yet it helped trigger a policy turn-around, both in London and in Washington, culminating seven days later in Johnson announcing a full lockdown of Britain. The report also jarred the U.S. administration into tougher measures to slow the virus' spread.
Go to Twitter with #BorisTheButcher, you'll find like minded people there who are keen to politicise this.
Of course we've made mistakes. Everyone knows better. We've been over this, but Switzerland have fucked this up, so have Italy, Spain and USA. China did too, more so than anyone else because they pretended it wasn't happening until it was too late. That's much worse than not really knowing what to do when it gets here. They also gave us information that suggested it wasn't as contagious as it is, by manipulating their figures (probably).
I'm really not interested in holding people to account, not unless there's evidence of deliberate mismanagement.
Is it possible to criticise the PM without politicising it? If so, let me know how that's done. Otherwise, I guess you'll just dismisss every criticism of the gov't as being "political."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What counts as "deliberate" mismanagement?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No-one is saying he's just been giving the finger to the country "deliberately", they're saying he and the people around him failed to heed the warnings. We've been behind every other country (except maybe the US) in dealing with things, from lockdown, to testing, to acquiring ventliators and PPE. Those aren't just "mistakes", those are collosal fuckups that are costing lives.
And I deliberately left out the part where they declined to cooperate with the EU because obviously you would just accuse me of "politicising" it, when in fact it was the gov't that politicised their own behaviour to our country's detriment.
This isn't directed at you, but there's a great many people who seem to be happy that we're amongst the worst hit countries, as it's an opportunity to take a pop at Boris.Quote:
Is it possible to criticise the PM without politicising it? If so, let me know how that's done. Otherwise, I guess you'll just dismisss every criticism of the gov't as being "political."
It's fine to critisise the govt, but if it's unjustified or opportunistic, then it's political point scoring. Now isn't the time for that.
idk, but lying about the statistics would certainly fall into this realm.Quote:
What counts as "deliberate" mismanagement?
The people around him include scientists with no political alignment.Quote:
they're saying he and the people around him failed to heed the warnings.
I have no idea how France, Italy and Spain compare to the UK in terms of how much this has been "fucked up". What I can say is that whatever they did, it didn't work. Germany, on the other hand, seem to be doing much better. Why this is, these questions can be answered in due course. Maybe there will come a time for accountability. But now is not that time, since we don't have all the information yet, and we're still fighting this thing.Quote:
We've been behind every other country (except maybe the US) in dealing with things, from lockdown, to testing, to acquiring ventliators and PPE. Those aren't just "mistakes", those are collosal fuckups that are costing lives.
You say these "colossal fuck ups are costing lives". We don't know whose fuck ups these are, and we don't know if other responses might have cost more lives.
I've done my best to leave the EU debate out of this, at least for now. There's nothing wrong with trying to cope with this alone, if we're capable of doing so. The EU need their resources, too. If we have enough capacity, yet still take ventilators off the EU, that's selfish and bad.Quote:
And I deliberately left out the part where they declined to cooperate with the EU because obviously you would just accuse me of "politicising" it, when in fact it was the gov't that politicised their own behaviour to our country's detriment.
The EU have not dealt with this very well at all, and there is a very real danger this is the end of the EU. It's too early to say yet, but fining Italy while at the peak of a pandemic, while at the same time sending aid to Iran, that kind of pissed a lot of people off.
Just in case it isn't clear to you by now, I'm not criticising his 'politics'. I'm criticising his 'disaster management.' If one is influenced by the other, that's bad. But regardless, the latter is objectively a serious problem here whether you accept it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We are behind ITA and SPA in the timeline of the progression of the disease, further behind in our measures, but already surpassing them in peak deaths/day. If it had hit us first among Europe and they had two weeks to get ready, you might expect their performance to be even better relative to ours. Unlike ITA and SPA, we had a warning and failed to take advantage of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
FRA is another shitshow afaict. I would not hold them up as something to aspire to.
You can wave your hands around as much as you want, but the answers are already pretty clear. GER has done many more times testing than us, already had a properly funded national health service before this even started, and sought extra equipment in time when it was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Bullshit. The buck stops with Johnson. If he gets bad advice, he has the duty to reject it. Or at least question it when it's obvious there's dissenting opinions out there. Not just say 'hurr durr, you're grandma's gonna die, get over it' and go out and shake hands with CV patients like a fucking moron with a national death wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But we're obviously not capable of doing it alone, and we obviously knew it, and so there obviously is something wrong with refusing to cooperate with the EU for political reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was never a question of "taking ventilators off the EU", it was a question of placing orders with countries and manufacturers in good time, and coordinating actions with other countries in the same boat as us. cf. above about not asking local industries to ramp up testing/PPE/ventilator production.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Fair enough. I agree we haven't handled this well, but I'm also of the opinion that very few people in his position would also handle this well. I'm in no doubt he's been taking the advice of people he considers experts, and those experts should be politically neutral. Disaster management is not something you can be trained for, especially when it's an unprecedented disaster such as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
The reason for this might not be the government's fault. We can't jump to conclusions until we've held an inquiry. What's the size of the average household in Italy, compared to the UK? I have no idea, but if we have larger families, on average. then the virus will thrive more. There will certainly be cultural factors at play.Quote:
We are behind ITA and SPA in the timeline of the progression of the disease, further behind in our measures, but already surpassing them in peak deaths/day.
We all had the warning and failed to take advantage. Why wait for the government to tell you what to do? We all saw what was happening in Italy, we all knew it was here in the UK, but we all carried on as though nothing was happening. You can blame the govt for that if you want, but I'll blame society in general. We were extremely complacent. All of us.Quote:
...we had a warning and failed to take advantage of it.
Their testing programme could indeed be the reason they are relatively better off. Their health service and preparedness are likely factors too. But we don't know this, we just assume it. And we're also assuming that doing these tests is as simple as buying bread from the shop, going home and making toast. Germany succeeded where Spain failed. They bought tests then sent them back to China. Maybe Germany got lucky and bought the right tests. I really don't know, that's pure speculation, the point is that it might not be incompetence that resulted in us not being able to carry out the same level of testing as Germany. There could be a large dose of luck involved.Quote:
You can wave your hands around as much as you want, but the answers are already pretty clear. GER has done many more times testing than us, already had a properly funded national health service before this even started, and sought extra equipment in time when it was needed.
As for health service budgets, this has been a problem in the UK for decades, through both Tory and Labour governments. It's a bit unfair to hold Boris to account for this, seeing as he's been in the job for under a year, and this time has been dominated by Brexit. Whether the promises for more NHS funding would have materialised without covid is open to debate, but since covid the funding has been provided.
Germany were better prepared. We certainly need to understand why that was, but it's not as simple as saying "well they tested more people and had a better health system". Italy also have a fantastic health system, so do France. idk how they'd been going about the testing issue.
No, it doesn't, and if Corbyn were in charge, the buck wouldn't stop with him either. You're assuming the PM should automatically be an expert on such matters. This isn't the case. The PM relies on experts, and those experts would be the same whether it's Tory or Labour in charge. How can he know if he's getting bad advice? Also, shaking hands with CV patients ins't a death wish. You don't get CV from touching peoples' hands. You get it from then poking your eye, or sticking your finger in your mouth. If I were going to shake hands with a covid patient, I'd wash my hands after. Fuck knows how Boris got covid, it could've been off his missus, it could've been off the Health Secretary, or it could've been because he poked his eye after shaking hands with an infected person. Your guess is as good as mine.Quote:
Bullshit. The buck stops with Johnson. If he gets bad advice, he has the duty to reject it.
In terms of ventilators, which is what the EU issue is, then yes we appear to be managing fine. Maybe we're at full capacity and they're lying, but there's no evidence for this that I'm aware of. idk why we didn't work with the EU on this matter, but it seems at this moment that it wasn't necessary, and if other EU countries are at maximum capacity, then it's good we didn't, because they're needed elsewhere.Quote:
But we're obviously not capable of doing it alone...
It is totally about ventilators. There's only so many they can order. We made our own orders, from companies within the UK. Why is that a problem?Quote:
It was never a question of "taking ventilators off the EU", it was a question of placing orders with countries and manufacturers in good time
South Korea seems to have handled it well.
I don't think Italy should be the standard everyone should hold themselves up to. I don't see how anyone can say the response by the US and UK governments wasn't abysmal. There were clear guidelines by the WHO and the CDC. The UK and the US chose to ignore them. Other countries did not. The results are pretty obvious.
What is still very confusing to me is the apparent link between authoritarianism and the instinct to deny natural catastrophes even when they're inevitable.
Italy was the first country in Europe where this took off, followed quickly by Spain and Swz. The rest of Europe had at least two weeks to see what was coming. The UK is very close to the bottom of the list of places that made proper use of that time lag.
Read the article I quoted Ong, it shows most of your arguments are bullshit.
S. Korea had recent experience with SARS, and so in a way this wasn't their first go-round. But yeah, they seem to be dealing with it pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU
The US is obviously in the hands of an idiot; I'm not sure what the UK's excuse is - maybe the same?
Trump was getting told from many directions, including the economic sector, the intelligence sector, the WHO, etc.
The recent Trevor Noah exposed some of these sources (to me).
Skip to 5:30 for the part I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QvS-PBQBM
I'm reading that article poop.
#BorisResignQuote:
But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government.
The problem with this is that this article mentions the 80% infection rate, which was clearly not a realistic figure. That came across as fearmongering. It seems to me based on this article that the blame for our suboptimal response lies with the advisers, not with the govt. Only if these advisers were specifically appointed by this govt, or if Boris was cherry picking who he listened to in order to suit his agenda can Boris be held to account on this matter.
There is a balance between taking action and avoiding panic. I don't envy those who have to make these decisions.
And this article itself points out it is too soon to draw conclusions. So no, it doesn't prove my argument to be bullshit, especially since my argument is largely that now is not the time for finger pointing.
He can say he was given bad advice, but he still has to take responsibility. He's the Prime Minister ffs, that's his job.
And moreover, even if he was led down the wrong path to begin with, he still didn't prepare properly even for his Plan A. No serious attempts to improve medical care (ventilators and/or PPE). If your plan is not to try to slow the spread of a disease AND not to try to safeguard your health workers or use the medical system to minimize deaths, then it's not a very good plan is it? I'm pretty sure no-one advised him to do nothing to address the issue.
You'd never hear Churchill say "Oh that Dieppe raid? Someone advised me to do that." He'd say "It was my decision and if it failed I'll take the blame."
Johnson is more Trump than Churchill, sadly.
Fine. If he fires his advisers, he's taken responsibility. But he shouldn't do this until an inquiry has been held.Quote:
He can say he was given bad advice, but he still has to take responsibility. He's the Prime Minister ffs, that's his job.
It is not the job of the PM to take the blame for everything. He's to blame if his personal incompetence, laziness, corruption or stubbornness are the reasons for our situation. Again, an inquiry will determine this, not social media.
Says who? You? Or a public inquiry?Quote:
No serious attempts to improve medical care (ventilators and/or PPE).
Are you saying you're "pretty sure" he ignored the advice of the experts he relies on? Because if he has done, that's incompetence and stubbornness, and I accept he should take the blame. But again, we don't decide this based on social media or what we read in the papers. Drumroll please... a public inquiry needs to determine this.Quote:
I'm pretty sure no-one advised him to do nothing to address the issue.
Boris is no Trump. Boris is an excellent orator, Trump talks shite. The difference between them is stark. And Churchill was a twat, if it wasn't for WWII he'd be a largely forgotten man. He was rude, alcoholic and probably the best person to have in charge during the war, and the worst any other time. idk what the fuck Churchill has to do with this matter, I've never heard Boris compare himself to Churchill. That's an obsession other people seem to have. Please, correct me if I'm wrong there.
This is what I mean by "it's not the time to point fingers". When this is over, there will be a public inquiry. If Boris is shown to have acted in a negligent way, he should resign. If he has acted criminally, he should be prosecuted. But the time for this discussion, at least in public, is not now.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...77586586832896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Holborn
https://twitter.com/Andysshot/status...81431844966400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Sshot
I really don't know what to believe, to be quite honest. This is why social media is not the place to draw conclusions. This is why an independent public inquiry is essential when this is over. There's so much information out there, much of it contradictory, you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
Says the news report I posted that you claimed to have read.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Seriously, if all you're gonna say is 'hurr durr we're drowning in dead people but I refuse to try to know why, let's just do an inquiry when it's all over' then you're just lazy, that's all. The information is out there for anyone who wants to look. It's well documented. It's not like one news agency is sayiing one thing and another is saying something completely different.
... he says after he posts a bunch of tweets from nobodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In b4 mojo moves your tweets to the 'stupid tweets arrrrgggh!' thread.
https://live.staticflickr.com/57/231...c1861cf5_b.jpg
So... not a public inquiry? I quoted a sentence from that article that implied his advisers did not "clearly signal their fears".Quote:
Says the news report I posted that you claimed to have read.
I'll wait for the inquiry, tyvm.
It's not laziness. It's a desire to ensure that blame isn't thrown around prematurely by people who are more interested in politics than anything else.Quote:
Seriously, if all you're gonna say is 'hurr durr we're drowning in dead people but I refuse to try to know why, let's just do an inquiry when it's all over' then you're just lazy, that's all.
Yeah, and you'll find whatever information you want to find.Quote:
The information is out there for anyone who wants to look.
I have no idea who the latter guy is, but that's besides the point. You post an article from a pair of nobodies and treat it like it's the word.Quote:
... he says after he posts a bunch of tweets from nobodies.
And that was my point. I don't post those tweets to support my position, I posted those to show there's contrasting information and if you dig enough, you'll find something supports your position.
It should be noted that those who are critical of the government are largely liberal minded people who oppose the government anyway.
I'm no Tory. I'm not defending my political belief here. I just feel that this isn't the time for politics, it's not the time for blame, that we have more important things to worry about right now. If anyone actually thinks Boris standing down will be of benefit to us at this time, then fair enough, fire away. I strongly disagree with that concept though. This would be the worst time possible for a PM to resign. There's no benefit to playing the blame game right now.
The article I posted was from Reuters. They're pretty well established as an objective source.
Yes, I agree. I was being a little flippant, but with that said, just because Reuters published it, doesn't mean it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I will acknowledge though that Reuters is a more respectable news agency than most, but it's still not an independent public inquiry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The point remains. An inquiry is not trial by media.
Yep. My long history of moving posts to other threads backs this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Keep that pic on hold, though... just in case nanners comes back and I get to ban someone again.
I don't really like the notion that when leaders are obviously screwing up at something this important, that we should just let them finish what they started before we look into maybe holding them accountable.
We do need to have our facts straight, and social media throws a lot out there. Some of it is true, but there's a lot of untrue noise and speculation delivered in convincing tones. Isolating the facts isn't easy, and takes some time, but it doesn't take forever.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised someone felt the need to draw a monkey Hitler before I felt the need to find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This would be fair enough in most circumstances, but not this one. In the case of Boris, we're talking about someone who just nearly died, who is going to need to rest for a month, and who is trying to coordinate our response to a health crisis. Is this really the right time to hold him to account? Especially since the things he's accused of are the subject of debate. It's not like he got caught on camera kissing a 14 y/o girl. He's not accused of criminal wrongdoing, he's accused of mismanagement. That's a subjective matter, so is it really in the national interest to deal with that right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
IDK about Boris so much aside from what I read here on FTR.
You could argue that he was soft on it before, but now that it's taken its personal tole on him, he is taking it seriously.
That would mean that replacing him may not be warranted.
However, if his actions now are not what they could or should be to best handle the pandemic, then ... I think there is reason to make a change. Kind of broadly speaking, in-a-perfect-world kind of way.
Trump is an absolute shit-show who spent the past few days saying that when this is over, we should never criticize how it was handled.
Kinda plays right into ong's argument to wait until it's all over, then not look back.
Good thing Boris isn't on this forum then. He's not going to get removed from office over this, but at least the press and/or the opposition could try to hold the government to account.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, 'nearly died' is a bit of a stretch. He went in ICU (so they say) for two nights, never went on a ventilator, and now is suddenly out of hospital. That's if you believe what they tell us. It's also possible he faked the whole thing to get sympathy because he knew how badly he fucked up.
Also, if he did catch it, it came from flaunting his own advice he was giving the country at the time lol. Either way he seems like a bit of a tool frankly.
If you want an idea of what public opinion is here: Where I live, people loudly cheer the NHS every Thurs. night. When it came time to 'clap for Boris', it was crickets.
I think we went into lockdown on March 12th, well before he got ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
It might be the case that he should step down, but that time is certainly not now, and he shouldn't do it because of what's being printed in the press, or as a result of social media pressure.Quote:
However, if his actions now are not what they could or should be to best handle the pandemic, then ... I think there is reason to make a change. Kind of broadly speaking, in-a-perfect-world kind of way.
As for Trump, well he's saying things like antibiotics would have dealt with this in the past, showing his complete ignorance on such matters. Even I know antibiotics are for bacterial infections, not viral. It's ok that's he's stupid on health matters, he's not a doctor, but clearly he's letting his ego get the better of him. I would be very careful as a leader what I was saying publicly about biology and virology, making sure any statements I made were proof read by those who are educated on the subject. And herein lies a significant difference between Trump and Boris. Boris hasn't said anything fucking dumb yet, not that I'm aware of at least. The "herd immunity" thing has some merit and is not worthy of the mockery it has got. It's just also not optimal strategy, at least I doubt it is.
But this isn't my argument. I'm saying wait until it's over, then do look back.Quote:
Kinda plays right into ong's argument to wait until it's all over, then not look back.
I think this is unfair. If not for the treatment he received, he probably would have died. I obviously don't know this, but he got a serious viral infection and was put into intensive care. This virus is killing healthier people than him.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
He looks ill. Maybe it's make up, maybe this is all bullshit, but I think that's just paranoia. You're quick to mock me when I get my tin hat on, but this is tin hat stuff.Quote:
He went in ICU (so they say)
This doesn't surprise me at all. He got a great reception in some places, and told to fuck off in others. That's politics for you.Quote:
If you want an idea of what public opinion is here: Where I live, people loudly cheer the NHS every Thurs. night. When it came time to 'clap for Boris', it was crickets.
Guess you missed this then.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3NAx3tsy-k
Public opinion for Boris is largely split based on political opinions. Those who voted for him clapped, those who didn't stayed inside and watched tv.
I didn't clap, for Boris or the NHS. I can't be bothered with such gestures, especially since I live in the middle of nowhere and have no neighbours. Bit pointless if the only lifeforms that hear me are cows.
Shaking hands with covid patients is not the same as saying antibiotics are the way to treat a virus. Some might even say it's a gesture of kindness and bravery, though I wouldn't quite go that far. So long as he washed his hands afterwards, he's taking a very small risk.
I guess you assume that's how he got the virus in the first place. But don't forget his partner and his health secretary both had it, he could have got it from either of them.
Yeah it was a real cacophony. I could hear that old man banging his pot from where I live.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/113502...s-coronavirus/
It's an airborne disease. You can catch it just by being close to someone. Even if you wash your hands afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I assume that if he's that stupid to go in and meet a CV sufferer without wearing protective gear, he's likely being just as stupid at other times. That's why I think he caught it, plus some bad luck obviously. But being stupid definitely helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't even need to hit the link, I know exactly who you're on about. I think the winning Twitter comment was "I wonder what chest size his trousers are".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Then shaking hands isn't the problem, just standing next to them is.Quote:
It's an airborne disease. You can catch it just by being close to someone. Even if you wash your hands afterwards.
I don't think Boris is stupid. I never thought Trump was stupid, but I'm reassessing that opinion. Maybe in time I'll reassess Boris, but he comes across as an intelligent man. He's a natural orator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop