Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:16 am  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

Just a few of your quotes Miro especially on Bill Gates whom you have an opinion on, here are the quotes by you in this thread

You said in a number of posts
Over 600,000 Americans sign a petition this year for the White House to investigate Bill Gates for “medical malpractice” Five times the required amount necessary.
Now correct me if I'm out of order here but would you buy a second hand car from a guy with a say 60 or 600 or 6000, 60,000 ? or even 600,000 petition to investigate him?
My guess is you would not, just out of caution mind.
Lets just say I'm cautious, very, very cautious.

Is Bill Gates doing something illegal or immoral?
Almost certainly. hence the 600,000 signed petition to have him investigated by the White House.

Yes I am fortunate to be in the 99.9% but then so is 99.9% of 68,000,000 people.

Had I been in the .1% I can assure you I still would not want all this restrictive crap om my account.

Do you not see either, that the restrictions are totaly dis-proportionate to the effect covid is having. Does not the figure of 99.9% have any meaning to you?

Yes, I've revived my estimate of 99.7% due to the admition from the main steam media,doctors and PTB from of them "lying" about the figures.

Can you tell me before I tell you the population of the USA and what percentage 600,000 people is I find it very interesting how you beat the drum about the very small number (your figures between 0.1 and 0.3 will have a serious impact from the virus)and then explain why you promote the petition of the 600,000. Thanks in advance.

First of all I never claimed 600,000 was a large percentage of the USA population so why bring that up?
However, 600,000 is a hell of a lot of individuals showing concern and that cannot be underestimated. After all, the powers that be in the US consider "only" 100,000 to be sufficient for a investigation.
To compare deaths with names on a petition is, even for you, scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and prove a point.

Let me once again make a comparison for you, If I must.
Lets imagine you, yes you, visit the US and decide to buy a used car from Texas Petes amazing car sales. You do a quick check online to verify Texas Pete and find 600 comments rubbishing the guy and his garage,
Do you:
a) Buy a car anyway
or
b) Do a quick calculation of what percent 600 is of the population of the USA. Decide it's a very, very tiny figure and buy a car from Texas Pete anyway.

Does this not demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is?

[PopTart]

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:09 am  

Miro wrote:

First of all I never claimed 600,000 was a large percentage of the USA population so why bring that up?
However, 600,000 is a hell of a lot of individuals showing concern and that cannot be underestimated. After all, the powers that be in the US consider "only" 100,000 to be sufficient for a investigation.
To compare deaths with names on a petition is, even for you, scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and prove a point.

Let me once again make a comparison for you, If I must.
Lets imagine you, yes you, visit the US and decide to buy a used car from Texas Petes amazing car sales. You do a quick check online to verify Texas Pete and find 600 comments rubbishing the guy and his garage,
Do you:
a) Buy a car anyway
or
b) Do a quick calculation of what percent 600 is of the population of the USA. Decide it's a very, very tiny figure and buy a car from Texas Pete anyway.

Does this not demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is?

By that logic, only one other person from all the posters on this board agree in any way with what you are saying.
Since the percentage is so wildly one way, are you to change your mind?
Does this not demonstrate....... Well you know the rest.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:36 am  

PopTart wrote:

"As you will see, I was clear on day one and have always laid out my position."
The length of your post and the fact it takes quite a bit of time to get to a point, proves that you do in fact not make yourself clear

I've cut out a bit of the blah to comment on what you say....

Nope. Not clear. You warned us, but didn't say what the right way was, just asked us to prove that the govs way was the right way.

“Lets get back to normal” Could I make it any clearer than that?

So you don't like our democratically elected government, accuse them of being corrupt, but don't actually like any other option either, but are banking on a new party, that doesn't yet exist, suddenly coming to power.

I said I think a new party may emerge, NOT I'm “banking” on a new party. Nor did I say “suddenly coming to power”
I aslo said maybe a breakaway. It's been done before so what is your problem with my statement?
What were you expecting me to say...An armed revolution????

Ah yes, your experts. Not your opinion. The other unkonwn people's opinion.

No Idea what that means. What do you mean by “unknown people”

​That's clear but so unlikely I can't understand why you would think this. We can't even agree with the rest of Europe to sell and buy stuff for our mutual benefit but we agree to a plan to con the people that vote us in, both left and right parties? Trump doesn't agree with anyone on anything

That has been clearly explained earlier in the thread. No need to go over it again.

[color=#FF0000]I think you will find Trump is not in charge of the USA. You appear to fail to understand how the US government operates.

However, wanting to reduce population growth is not a crime unless you stop people doing it illegally.
The solution isn't to just kill everyone with a virus. That is the stuff of Dan Brown fiction. Inferno is a really good book. [/color]

These are not my words, thoughts or ideas, they are your words. . I did not make any direct allegations towards Bill Gates. See car dealer analogy and the 600,000.

The club has nothing to do with accepting deaths because people come to Belle Vue. The decision is a government advice and NRL decision. And you don't catch influenzas by standing in the cold.

Are you saying they will not accept covid deaths but will accept influenza deaths.
The club is not questioning nor is it disagreeing with government advice as far as I can tell. It presumably orders the players to only touch elbows with the opposition after playing them in a game of rugby flaming league.
And, it was telling us on e mails to stay home plus it was quick off the mark to cash in on masks.
“Taking government advice?” I'd say they were more complicit than that.

And you don't catch influenzas by standing in the cold.

Strange comment this. Are you now saying you cannot catch a potentially deadly virus by mingling with 5,000 folk in a rugby stadium? Yet you support the rule of 6 ??? and the present closure of Belle Vue to spectators.

I'd be wearing a mask and staying clear of people outside my bubble. The problem is, you go as well and you won't be doing that.

As mentioned in another post. In the many months this has been ongoing I have not suffered the virus, no one in my family, no one I know, no one they know, no shopkeepers, front line workers and not even my 99 year old neighbour or the many rule breakers I have had the pleasure to meet. I speak and act as I find. That is not to say I don't keep my distance from those who are frightened and scared and wish to social distance. But these types are, thankfully, few and far between.
On that basis, you are safe with me, honestly.

by draconian do you mean wear a mask in public places?

Is that all it is? Really ?

not the same. I assume THAT PLAYER you refer to is Mose Masoe. There are many safe guards in place to stop this happening but sometimes an accident happens and it is terrible. That's not the same as not applying any safeguards because you either don't believe it will happen or only believe it will affect old people.

No, not Mose Masoe, Do not assume. I do not name individuals to make my point. There are many players over the years, I do not need to specify one individual. Also why “THAT PLAYER”

Players choose (as did I) to take risks and no amount of safeguards have eradicated deaths in sport.
But there will always be a risk just as in life away from sport there are risks. You wish to live in a bubble and screw up the economy while wearing a mask, and the rest. So be it. But these are measures that have gone too far, totally dis-proportionat, in my opinion, just as wearing body armour or only one man in a tackle would be a step too far in rugby.

because its hard work and unnecessarily so.

Yet people will discuss Big Daves foot or a thousand plus words on Newmarket but not the future of Belle Vue / Trinity in these unpresedented times because its hard work and unnecessarily??? How odd.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:04 am  

PopTart wrote:

By that logic, only one other person from all the posters on this board agree in any way with what you are saying.
Since the percentage is so wildly one way, are you to change your mind?
Does this not demonstrate....... Well you know the rest.

No, there is more than one, maybe they are not as vocal as the enablers but deffinatley more than one. Do you include those quick fire snipers who's sole contribtion is along the lines of "this is boring" "your David Icke and I claim my £5" in your " the percentage is so wildly one way" Your begining to sound like RW&B.

You have to remember we are up against months of BBC, SKY, ITV, CBS, all the national newspapers propaganda so really, the ratio isn't all that bad. In all honesty Poptart, there should be far far more of you.

However, as I have pointed out previousy, the thread has, to date 18,627 views so the half dozen of you who tow Boris's line and argue against us is in itself a tiny proportion of visitors.

By the way, what the hell are we doing up at this time in the morning

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:48 am  

Miro wrote:

No, there is more than one, maybe they are not as vocal as the enablers but deffinatley more than one. Do you include those quick fire snipers who's sole contribtion is along the lines of "this is boring" "your David Icke and I claim my £5" in your " the percentage is so wildly one way" Your begining to sound like RW&B.

You have to remember we are up against months of BBC, SKY, ITV, CBS, all the national newspapers propaganda so really, the ratio isn't all that bad. In all honesty Poptart, there should be far far more of you.

However, as I have pointed out previousy, the thread has, to date 18,627 views so the half dozen of you who tow Boris's line and argue against us is in itself a tiny proportion of visitors.

By the way, what the hell are we doing up at this time in the morning

You do know that's not 18,627 unique individual visitors, right?

P.S. who toes Boris' line? He (but probably Cummings) has got almost everything wrong in response to this pandemic. That's why we're still in such deep doodoo after all this intervention.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:37 am  

Over 18,000 views suggests that ‘THEY’ are on to you Miro.

Run. Go into hiding. While you still can.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:12 am  

MatthewTrin wrote: Yeah I think the link is https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths proves my point. As for the guidance on the 16th March, it was our original approach similar to that of the approach in Sweden; washing hands, stay home if you are sick, work from home if you can etc - certainly one I'd endorse. This was and still is the most sensible approach based on over 40 years of epidemiology knowledge, no reason to change it. Whether it had an actual significant impact on the curve early on is difficult to know. But based on my own personal experience after the announcement, I found working in Leeds city centre that week was still busy and towards the end of the week there was a mad rush on in the shops buying food etc. I only started noticing a real difference after the 23rd March when the shops and streets became very quiet. By Friday 27th March the whole of Leeds was practically empty. Sweden? I thought they adopted a strategy to flatten the curve after they discovered, just like the UK, that the virus was already widespread in their community. I never heard anyone talking about saving the most lives from C19 in the population, it was all about flattening the curve. As we did in the UK they achieved their aims. In comparison to Norway, Finland and Denmark they either didn't have the virus widespread in the first place or if they did there was not enough susceptible people in the population to infect with the disease. The head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health believes Norway could have brought the coronavirus pandemic under control without a lockdown, and called for the country to avoid such far-reaching measures if hit by a second wave. https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/norway ... alth-chief South America is a different kettle of fish to Europe. To be fair to countries like Brazil they were unlucky as the outbreak of the virus was followed by them entering into their Winter season. Looking at the the daily deaths they have still been falling since the 29th July regardless of a nationwide lockdown mandate. I fully expect the rate will continue to fall as they start to enter the summer months in December. Admittedly they did have a prolonged 2 month peak prior to 29th July but this can be explained as mentioned before on it being coupled with the Winter season. Lets now use the example of Brazil against the country with the worlds strictest lockdown, Peru, in the same continent as them. Their lockdown was militarised but they still have a higher death rate per capita and less susceptible number of people to run through than Brazil Peru population = 33,114,228 million - Covid deaths = 34,033 (1,028 deaths per million population) Brazil population = 213,032,208 million - Total Covid deaths = 156,528 (735 deaths per million population) Source - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ My point is if you looked at all the graphs and you were blinded to the label of each country. I'd be surprised if you could tell me just by looking at them which countries lockdown and which didn't. You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place. The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives. The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined? Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself. The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_ ... a_pandemic Other actions/restrictions will have an effect on the spread, but much slower. Where i live there was no lockdown, but they severely restricted movement in and out of districts. As the virus had not spread to here, it was very effective and there is still no community spread of the virus. In other areas, particularly big cities, there was a lockdown. This zonal approach is much more effective. Saying all the curves go up and then down regardless of lockdown is like saying all mountains go up and down so they are all the same. Everest is not the same as Ben Nevis. I really don't have the data for all countries for dates/timing of lockdown and numbers of deaths. A thorough analysis of a significant selection of countries is needed, but it is notoriously difficult to make international comparisons as conditions and levels of testing and methods of recording deaths varies widely. Interesting that the UK binned 5,500 deaths (change of method) in the middle of August and 30,000 cases (double counting) at he start of April but never corrected the massive underestimate of cases before that (lack of testing). According to statisticians (more or less podcast) the most accurate reflection of deaths caused by covid would be a limit of 60 days, not 28. An analogy for the virus is a loan with compound interest (also exponential). The amount of interest you pay (deaths) depends on 3 factors: Interest rate (R number), amount borrowed (prevalence) and time. The only one you can control is the interest rate (R number). For loans, you could transfer to different lender with lower interest, but there may be costs involved (economic impact). So, the action you take depends on the current situation. Is the interest rate still low enough? Is the amount borrowed small? Can you easily afford the interest payments? (death rate not significantly higher than normal) You have to do the calculations. Maybe it's worth paying to transfer the loan if you can see that in a couple of months you won't be able to pay the interest. On the Nordic countries, it seems valid to compare them to each other rather than to the UK This is a highly contagious virus which spreads by people with the virus (symptomatic or not) coming into close contact with people who are susceptible to it. In the UK we are very mobile and in most places live very close to others. This is perfect for the spread. It is clear that due to lack of testing that the government had no idea how bad the spread had got until it was pretty much too late to control without a long lockdown. Those countries who reacted quickly and harshly have come out of this the best. So, comparing total deaths in Sweden with the other Nordic countries combined, using daily data from the BBC/JHU (I only started collecting data 28th March when I was WFH Sweden (Total Norway/Finland/Denmark) 28th March 105 (94) 28th April 2355 (839) 28th May 4266 (1117) 28th June 5280 (1181) It's clear that numbers in Sweden were relatively out of control. Would they have saved lives if they'd reacted faster? edit to add: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646

MatthewTrin wrote: Yeah I think the link is https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths proves my point. As for the guidance on the 16th March, it was our original approach similar to that of the approach in Sweden; washing hands, stay home if you are sick, work from home if you can etc - certainly one I'd endorse. This was and still is the most sensible approach based on over 40 years of epidemiology knowledge, no reason to change it. Whether it had an actual significant impact on the curve early on is difficult to know. But based on my own personal experience after the announcement, I found working in Leeds city centre that week was still busy and towards the end of the week there was a mad rush on in the shops buying food etc. I only started noticing a real difference after the 23rd March when the shops and streets became very quiet. By Friday 27th March the whole of Leeds was practically empty. Sweden? I thought they adopted a strategy to flatten the curve after they discovered, just like the UK, that the virus was already widespread in their community. I never heard anyone talking about saving the most lives from C19 in the population, it was all about flattening the curve. As we did in the UK they achieved their aims. In comparison to Norway, Finland and Denmark they either didn't have the virus widespread in the first place or if they did there was not enough susceptible people in the population to infect with the disease. The head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health believes Norway could have brought the coronavirus pandemic under control without a lockdown, and called for the country to avoid such far-reaching measures if hit by a second wave. https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/norway ... alth-chief South America is a different kettle of fish to Europe. To be fair to countries like Brazil they were unlucky as the outbreak of the virus was followed by them entering into their Winter season. Looking at the the daily deaths they have still been falling since the 29th July regardless of a nationwide lockdown mandate. I fully expect the rate will continue to fall as they start to enter the summer months in December. Admittedly they did have a prolonged 2 month peak prior to 29th July but this can be explained as mentioned before on it being coupled with the Winter season. Lets now use the example of Brazil against the country with the worlds strictest lockdown, Peru, in the same continent as them. Their lockdown was militarised but they still have a higher death rate per capita and less susceptible number of people to run through than Brazil Peru population = 33,114,228 million - Covid deaths = 34,033 (1,028 deaths per million population) Brazil population = 213,032,208 million - Total Covid deaths = 156,528 (735 deaths per million population) Source - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ My point is if you looked at all the graphs and you were blinded to the label of each country. I'd be surprised if you could tell me just by looking at them which countries lockdown and which didn't. You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place. The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives. The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined? Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself. The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_ ... a_pandemic Other actions/restrictions will have an effect on the spread, but much slower. Where i live there was no lockdown, but they severely restricted movement in and out of districts. As the virus had not spread to here, it was very effective and there is still no community spread of the virus. In other areas, particularly big cities, there was a lockdown. This zonal approach is much more effective. Saying all the curves go up and then down regardless of lockdown is like saying all mountains go up and down so they are all the same. Everest is not the same as Ben Nevis. I really don't have the data for all countries for dates/timing of lockdown and numbers of deaths. A thorough analysis of a significant selection of countries is needed, but it is notoriously difficult to make international comparisons as conditions and levels of testing and methods of recording deaths varies widely. Interesting that the UK binned 5,500 deaths (change of method) in the middle of August and 30,000 cases (double counting) at he start of April but never corrected the massive underestimate of cases before that (lack of testing). According to statisticians (more or less podcast) the most accurate reflection of deaths caused by covid would be a limit of 60 days, not 28. An analogy for the virus is a loan with compound interest (also exponential). The amount of interest you pay (deaths) depends on 3 factors: Interest rate (R number), amount borrowed (prevalence) and time. The only one you can control is the interest rate (R number). For loans, you could transfer to different lender with lower interest, but there may be costs involved (economic impact). So, the action you take depends on the current situation. Is the interest rate still low enough? Is the amount borrowed small? Can you easily afford the interest payments? (death rate not significantly higher than normal) You have to do the calculations. Maybe it's worth paying to transfer the loan if you can see that in a couple of months you won't be able to pay the interest. On the Nordic countries, it seems valid to compare them to each other rather than to the UK This is a highly contagious virus which spreads by people with the virus (symptomatic or not) coming into close contact with people who are susceptible to it. In the UK we are very mobile and in most places live very close to others. This is perfect for the spread. It is clear that due to lack of testing that the government had no idea how bad the spread had got until it was pretty much too late to control without a long lockdown. Those countries who reacted quickly and harshly have come out of this the best. So, comparing total deaths in Sweden with the other Nordic countries combined, using daily data from the BBC/JHU (I only started collecting data 28th March when I was WFH Sweden (Total Norway/Finland/Denmark) 28th March 105 (94) 28th April 2355 (839) 28th May 4266 (1117) 28th June 5280 (1181) It's clear that numbers in Sweden were relatively out of control. Would they have saved lives if they'd reacted faster? edit to add: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:21 am  

Miro wrote:

First of all I never claimed 600,000 was a large percentage of the USA population so why bring that up?
However, 600,000 is a hell of a lot of individuals showing concern and that cannot be underestimated. After all, the powers that be in the US consider "only" 100,000 to be sufficient for a investigation.
To compare deaths with names on a petition is, even for you, scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and prove a point.

Let me once again make a comparison for you, If I must.
Lets imagine you, yes you, visit the US and decide to buy a used car from Texas Petes amazing car sales. You do a quick check online to verify Texas Pete and find 600 comments rubbishing the guy and his garage,
Do you:
a) Buy a car anyway
or
b) Do a quick calculation of what percent 600 is of the population of the USA. Decide it's a very, very tiny figure and buy a car from Texas Pete anyway.

Does this not demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is?

No you didn't say 600,000 was a large percentage of the USA that's not what I asked, read my post again I asked what the population of the USA was and what proportion 600,000 is of that to put that in perspective along side you beating the drum about 99.7% being unaffected by the virus from a health point of view.

My ridiculous argument, there you go straight on the defensive as usual and attack with information that can be rubbished, that's why its pointless debating with someone like you.

Now can you answer my question please you like one way traffic don't you but a bit of scrutiny in your analysis and everyone else is

If you want to start going down to slagging people off for putting a question good luck because you will be arguing with yourself. So thanks for the crazy emoji was that aimed at me or you?

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:38 am  

Miro wrote:

First of all I never claimed 600,000 was a large percentage of the USA population so why bring that up?
However, 600,000 is a hell of a lot of individuals showing concern and that cannot be underestimated. After all, the powers that be in the US consider "only" 100,000 to be sufficient for a investigation.
To compare deaths with names on a petition is, even for you, scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and prove a point.

Let me once again make a comparison for you, If I must.
Lets imagine you, yes you, visit the US and decide to buy a used car from Texas Petes amazing car sales. You do a quick check online to verify Texas Pete and find 600 comments rubbishing the guy and his garage,
Do you:
a) Buy a car anyway
or
b) Do a quick calculation of what percent 600 is of the population of the USA. Decide it's a very, very tiny figure and buy a car from Texas Pete anyway.

Does this not demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is?

I'm beginning to worry about your grasp of basic arithmetic.
The whole population of the USA has probably not visited Texas Pete's.
I would perhaps look at how many people had visited and if it was 600 complaints out of 700 customers then I'd probably steer clear.

P.S. I'll respond to your earlier post when I get chance to do some research.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:25 am  

I read this last night and thought that I'd accidentally logged on to RL Fans: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53191523 Dont know if i'm adding fuel to Miro's fire or have just found one of his sources:

I read this last night and thought that I'd accidentally logged on to RL Fans: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53191523 Dont know if i'm adding fuel to Miro's fire or have just found one of his sources: