FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Experts these days
Experts these days
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." Isnt the uk like 4th in the worst hit countries in Europe? Arent we still getting nearly 1000 people dying a day? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? " This. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life. Isnt the uk like 4th in the worst hit countries in Europe? Arent we still getting nearly 1000 people dying a day?" It is 4th. The prediction in the article was 2500 per day by April 17th. Also, the article was very critical of UK government's strategy. The government's strategy was clear. We should flatten the curve and reach the peak during spring or summer. They are doing just that. Herd immunity was just going to be a side effect of that approach. And aren't all countries essentially getting towards herd immunity? If a country goes to strict lockdown much earlier, when do you expect them to open again? Till we find a vaccine? We don't know if we will ever find a vaccine for it. Even if we did, it will take 1.5 years. | |||
"Deaths in care homes are not being recorded as CV19. There’s no point comparing stats to projects or other countries. We’ve got what we’ve got, and we just need to try and ride it out. I’m counting myself lucky not to have been personally too badly affected (yet). I’ve lost a holiday but no loved ones and I’m still working. I do know some people (NHS staff) who have been horribly ill with it, but not tested or treated. " Yes. Deaths in care homes are not counted. Adding them still will not even get us to half the value projected. The situation is still bad. I get that. But some newspapers want to spell doom and create negativity around us, just so that they can sell more. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? " And you believe in the guardian figure? | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life. Isnt the uk like 4th in the worst hit countries in Europe? Arent we still getting nearly 1000 people dying a day? It is 4th. The prediction in the article was 2500 per day by April 17th. Also, the article was very critical of UK government's strategy. The government's strategy was clear. We should flatten the curve and reach the peak during spring or summer. They are doing just that. Herd immunity was just going to be a side effect of that approach. And aren't all countries essentially getting towards herd immunity? If a country goes to strict lockdown much earlier, when do you expect them to open again? Till we find a vaccine? We don't know if we will ever find a vaccine for it. Even if we did, it will take 1.5 years." The 4th worse death rate in Europe..with stats still going up..and care homes not being counted. Well let's just say I'm not getting the bunting out just yet. I'm not going over the gmnt strategy again..its been done to death..but it depends which expert you listen too. When this is all over we need a totally independent look into what we did right and what we did wrong. But I'm not holding my breath | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? " Partially true. There's no way anyone can manipulate the figures and convince a reasonably intelligent person that South Korea isn't doing an order of magnitude better than the UK. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure?" Which source do you believe out of interest? The government? Another press source? Some random bs on youtube? A | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure?" You believe the gmnt figures? | |||
"Deaths in care homes are not being recorded as CV19. There’s no point comparing stats to projects or other countries. We’ve got what we’ve got, and we just need to try and ride it out. I’m counting myself lucky not to have been personally too badly affected (yet). I’ve lost a holiday but no loved ones and I’m still working. I do know some people (NHS staff) who have been horribly ill with it, but not tested or treated. Yes. Deaths in care homes are not counted. Adding them still will not even get us to half the value projected. The situation is still bad. I get that. But some newspapers want to spell doom and create negativity around us, just so that they can sell more." And some newspapers will spin it the other way. A lot more in fact. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions" And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? Which source do you believe out of interest? The government? Another press source? Some random bs on youtube? A" In scale of confidence, government guardian random YouTube bs. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures?" The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. " Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life. Isnt the uk like 4th in the worst hit countries in Europe? Arent we still getting nearly 1000 people dying a day? It is 4th. The prediction in the article was 2500 per day by April 17th. Also, the article was very critical of UK government's strategy. The government's strategy was clear. We should flatten the curve and reach the peak during spring or summer. They are doing just that. Herd immunity was just going to be a side effect of that approach. And aren't all countries essentially getting towards herd immunity? If a country goes to strict lockdown much earlier, when do you expect them to open again? Till we find a vaccine? We don't know if we will ever find a vaccine for it. Even if we did, it will take 1.5 years. The 4th worse death rate in Europe..with stats still going up..and care homes not being counted. Well let's just say I'm not getting the bunting out just yet. I'm not going over the gmnt strategy again..its been done to death..but it depends which expert you listen too. When this is all over we need a totally independent look into what we did right and what we did wrong. But I'm not holding my breath" Of course we need to review the entire thing once it is all over. I am talking about why we should not take these predictions seriously and get all messed up in our heads. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it." The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate? | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life. Isnt the uk like 4th in the worst hit countries in Europe? Arent we still getting nearly 1000 people dying a day? It is 4th. The prediction in the article was 2500 per day by April 17th. Also, the article was very critical of UK government's strategy. The government's strategy was clear. We should flatten the curve and reach the peak during spring or summer. They are doing just that. Herd immunity was just going to be a side effect of that approach. And aren't all countries essentially getting towards herd immunity? If a country goes to strict lockdown much earlier, when do you expect them to open again? Till we find a vaccine? We don't know if we will ever find a vaccine for it. Even if we did, it will take 1.5 years. The 4th worse death rate in Europe..with stats still going up..and care homes not being counted. Well let's just say I'm not getting the bunting out just yet. I'm not going over the gmnt strategy again..its been done to death..but it depends which expert you listen too. When this is all over we need a totally independent look into what we did right and what we did wrong. But I'm not holding my breath Of course we need to review the entire thing once it is all over. I am talking about why we should not take these predictions seriously and get all messed up in our heads." The thing is we are bombarded with them. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. " Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate?" I don't care for predictions. It is now pretty clear that none of the predictions are working. We could argue about present figures. But there is no use running into conclusions based on future estimates. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions." Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him 
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate? I don't care for predictions. It is now pretty clear that none of the predictions are working. We could argue about present figures. But there is no use running into conclusions based on future estimates." So throw the baby out with the bathwater because you've only seen the results of shit models? | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities. "I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit. For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis? | |||
| |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate? I don't care for predictions. It is now pretty clear that none of the predictions are working. We could argue about present figures. But there is no use running into conclusions based on future estimates. So throw the baby out with the bathwater because you've only seen the results of shit models? " The one on guardian was what turned out to be a shit model. | |||
"My view is comparing stats is worthless I think each country has a different approach to the virus and way of reporting deaths. If you don't test people who die then you will have zero cases Even within the same country the stats are not believable, New York has 5 times C19 deaths than the next state and 16 times the third one. All we can do is trust our stats are reported consistently so we can see if things are getting better " This  | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate? I don't care for predictions. It is now pretty clear that none of the predictions are working. We could argue about present figures. But there is no use running into conclusions based on future estimates. So throw the baby out with the bathwater because you've only seen the results of shit models? The one on guardian was what turned out to be a shit model." The article you linked to, discussed w models. They are both shit. | |||
"Trouble is figures can be manipulated to suit whoever or whatever , who actually believes the Uk unemployment figure ? And you believe in the guardian figure? You believe the gmnt figures? The government figures may not be perfect. But as mentioned above by another poster, you have to be in a country like North Korea for the government to just reduce the death count to less than half and get away with it. The Guardian figure was a prediction The government is death toll.Huge difference. Didnt the gmnt advisor say the total figure would be 20,000,?didnt he revise this estimate? I don't care for predictions. It is now pretty clear that none of the predictions are working. We could argue about present figures. But there is no use running into conclusions based on future estimates. So throw the baby out with the bathwater because you've only seen the results of shit models? The one on guardian was what turned out to be a shit model." Actually a scientist has just been on 5 live confirming we are well on course to br one of the worst hit European countries. Headlines on news. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?"The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?
The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing. "It is complicated because we still don't understand everything about the virus. It is easy to say we have to track how many people on average, an infected person can infect. This seems to vary a lot between different countries. Some say it is because of temperature. Some say it is because of age demography. And some say it is because people in some countries have taken vaccinations for some diseases specific to that country. And add people's behaviour to it. In some countries, people hug often. In places like Japan, they don't even touch another person that much. The variables you are saying, are very hard to define. And which country has effectively used contact tracing to stop this? Even if they stopped this, when are they planning to re-open? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?
The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing.
It is complicated because we still don't understand everything about the virus. It is easy to say we have to track how many people on average, an infected person can infect. This seems to vary a lot between different countries. Some say it is because of temperature. Some say it is because of age demography. And some say it is because people in some countries have taken vaccinations for some diseases specific to that country. And add people's behaviour to it. In some countries, people hug often. In places like Japan, they don't even touch another person that much. The variables you are saying, are very hard to define. And which country has effectively used contact tracing to stop this? Even if they stopped this, when are they planning to re-open?"It's really not. Most the variables you're talking about make fuck all difference. Most western countries are following a trajectory of 2-3 infections over a 3-5 day period. Then it's just a question about how much each measure reduces those. By far the best is mass testing with contact tracing. Do you realise South Korea hasn't even had a day where more than 10 people died and they have a population of 51m? | |||
"Crikey, if you are hating on The Guardian right now, you must be shocked by The Mail, it's been holding the government's feet to the fire daily for it's failings over this crisis. " Of course the Mail is shit. Doesn't make the guardian any better. | |||
"We may end up with the highest death rate in Europe, but you have to look at the bigger picture. 80% of UK population live in half a dozen urban areas where as Europe is more spead out, also we have a larger population per square mile than anywhere in Europe. " True. Plenty of variables here. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?
The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing.
It is complicated because we still don't understand everything about the virus. It is easy to say we have to track how many people on average, an infected person can infect. This seems to vary a lot between different countries. Some say it is because of temperature. Some say it is because of age demography. And some say it is because people in some countries have taken vaccinations for some diseases specific to that country. And add people's behaviour to it. In some countries, people hug often. In places like Japan, they don't even touch another person that much. The variables you are saying, are very hard to define. And which country has effectively used contact tracing to stop this? Even if they stopped this, when are they planning to re-open?
It's really not. Most the variables you're talking about make fuck all difference. Most western countries are following a trajectory of 2-3 infections over a 3-5 day period. Then it's just a question about how much each measure reduces those. By far the best is mass testing with contact tracing. Do you realise South Korea hasn't even had a day where more than 10 people died and they have a population of 51m? "Keeping everyone locked down in home is obviously going to reduce the numbers. The question is when do you want to go into lockdown? If lockdown is not in place, how fast does it spread? No one still has an answer on how it is not spreading much in India. Lockdown was announced too late after first infection. And most people are not following social distancing. The country is as densely populated as you can get. Now that South Korea didn't have too many infections, when are they ever going to open again? Telling that "I know everything about the virus and predict the future" is just plain egoistic. | |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?
The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing.
It is complicated because we still don't understand everything about the virus. It is easy to say we have to track how many people on average, an infected person can infect. This seems to vary a lot between different countries. Some say it is because of temperature. Some say it is because of age demography. And some say it is because people in some countries have taken vaccinations for some diseases specific to that country. And add people's behaviour to it. In some countries, people hug often. In places like Japan, they don't even touch another person that much. The variables you are saying, are very hard to define. And which country has effectively used contact tracing to stop this? Even if they stopped this, when are they planning to re-open?
It's really not. Most the variables you're talking about make fuck all difference. Most western countries are following a trajectory of 2-3 infections over a 3-5 day period. Then it's just a question about how much each measure reduces those. By far the best is mass testing with contact tracing. Do you realise South Korea hasn't even had a day where more than 10 people died and they have a population of 51m?
Keeping everyone locked down in home is obviously going to reduce the numbers. The question is when do you want to go into lockdown? If lockdown is not in place, how fast does it spread? No one still has an answer on how it is not spreading much in India. Lockdown was announced too late after first infection. And most people are not following social distancing. The country is as densely populated as you can get. Now that South Korea didn't have too many infections, when are they ever going to open again?
Telling that "I know everything about the virus and predict the future" is just plain egoistic." | |||
| |||
"The issue is that these models require expertise in at least 3 separate disciplines: medical knowledge, forecasting knowledge and some behavioural science. Being a doctor does not make you an expert in forecasting the spread of disease. It's painfully clear that these models are amateur standard if you know what to look for. Real experts do not use the kind of imprecise language they are describing. Here's a sample of the mistakes in the Imperial model: https://necsi.edu/review-of-ferguson-et-al-impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions And which model has actually predicted correctly? There are plenty of unknowns. With so many years of research on weather, we are still finding it hard to make correct predictions more than a day ahead. Human behaviour and societal behaviour are even more unpredictable. Still no one even understands why India has much less cases/deaths while it was predicted to go over the roof by now. We could maybe take a step back after it is all over and review what went right and wrong. It is practically of no use getting angry and debating about some group's prediction of what might happen. Nonsense. Do you really think there is no standard by which predictions are measured and that weather forecasting isn't an order of magnitude better than this??? I seriously recommend you read superforceasting by philip tetlock, it will explain to you why the models you see in the media are usually the worst, not the best available. Hint: media likes sensational stories, not accurate ones. Looks like you totally misunderstood my post. Weather forecasting has standards and plenty of research has gone into it. Still it is far away from perfection. I am saying that even with so much understanding about weather, we find it hard to make accurate predictions for more than two days. With the coronavirus, we are looking at plenty of unknowns. There many predictions out there. As you told, the media picks and chooses what it wants, to make it looks sensational. We people could do a lot better to not get into arguments based on these predictions. Models don't need to be perfect to be useful. Weather forecasting is very good standard, I have no idea why you picked that as your example. Honestly, coronavirus isn't the most complicated model, I'm not saying it's easy but it's mid-range on the challenge scale. All modelling has standards, the guy behind the imperial also made predictions for China which were wrong by thousands of percent, yet nobody cared about his track record of bullshit when the government started defaulting to him
There are plenty of people who could do a better job on this, you just don't find them in universities.
I follow cricket religiously, a game that gets fucked if it rains. I have never see weather forecasts predicting rains during game more than a day earlier. Even the weather forecast on the day before a match has gone wrong. I have noticed the same even during traveling. Weather forecast is good, but it has its limit.
For something as complicated as this, who else do you think has better credentials? And on what basis?
The model isn't all that complicated, the real question is how many people, on average, does an infected person infect and how long does it take them to infect them. Then you consider the variables that effect those rates, there aren't actually all that many of them. But they forget to model basics, like what happens if you test people without symptoms so they stop spreading. Probably didn't want to make the government look bad by showing that the most effective measures were things we still aren't doing: mass testing and contact tracing.
It is complicated because we still don't understand everything about the virus. It is easy to say we have to track how many people on average, an infected person can infect. This seems to vary a lot between different countries. Some say it is because of temperature. Some say it is because of age demography. And some say it is because people in some countries have taken vaccinations for some diseases specific to that country. And add people's behaviour to it. In some countries, people hug often. In places like Japan, they don't even touch another person that much. The variables you are saying, are very hard to define. And which country has effectively used contact tracing to stop this? Even if they stopped this, when are they planning to re-open?
It's really not. Most the variables you're talking about make fuck all difference. Most western countries are following a trajectory of 2-3 infections over a 3-5 day period. Then it's just a question about how much each measure reduces those. By far the best is mass testing with contact tracing. Do you realise South Korea hasn't even had a day where more than 10 people died and they have a population of 51m?
Keeping everyone locked down in home is obviously going to reduce the numbers. The question is when do you want to go into lockdown? If lockdown is not in place, how fast does it spread? No one still has an answer on how it is not spreading much in India. Lockdown was announced too late after first infection. And most people are not following social distancing. The country is as densely populated as you can get. Now that South Korea didn't have too many infections, when are they ever going to open again?
Telling that "I know everything about the virus and predict the future" is just plain egoistic."Where do you get your information? 
87% of brits are following social distancing all of the time or nearly all the time. South Korea never had a lockdown to open up from. You seem to have formed your opinion without much evidence... | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree." No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion." Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious. 
A | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A"True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it. | |||
| |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it."I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic. I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag. Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan"I’ll not disagree with your Independent analysis but the rest of your statement is highly contradictory. If the Guardian counterbalances the Mail etc then by your definition it is as far to the left as the Mail is to the right. As I mentioned probably last week, newspapers and media outlets preach to the converted, while people tend to hang their hat on the one that suits their own ideology. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
I’ll not disagree with your Independent analysis but the rest of your statement is highly contradictory. If the Guardian counterbalances the Mail etc then by your definition it is as far to the left as the Mail is to the right.
As I mentioned probably last week, newspapers and media outlets preach to the converted, while people tend to hang their hat on the one that suits their own ideology. "The guardian is not remotely left wing..its centre and considering how far right the likes of the mail etc it's still extremely unbalanced. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan"The guardian is centre? 
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial? | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
The guardian is centre?
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial?"The only left wing newspaper in this country is the barely read socialist worker. It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
The guardian is centre?
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial?
The only left wing newspaper in this country is the barely read socialist worker.
It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing."You say that because it fits your ideology as already highlighted. Equally a Mail etc reader would argue exactly the same point in reverse. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing." No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
The guardian is centre?
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial?
The only left wing newspaper in this country is the barely read socialist worker.
It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing.
You say that because it fits your ideology as already highlighted. Equally a Mail etc reader would argue exactly the same point in reverse. "Ok so you are saying the guardian and socialist worker are both ideologically the same? | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you." Raving commy?
Superb | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
The guardian is centre?
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial?
The only left wing newspaper in this country is the barely read socialist worker.
It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing.
You say that because it fits your ideology as already highlighted. Equally a Mail etc reader would argue exactly the same point in reverse.
Ok so you are saying the guardian and socialist worker are both ideologically the same?"I didn’t mention the Socialist Worker so that’s irrelevant | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb"Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait"Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him. | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." the biggest rag of all newspapers,and totally left wing to boot | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Just using your first quote. Not just the Guardian but many other news outlets I posted https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1007551 BBC headline story on line this morning now they say it was not true. How many other news organisations are just reporting fake news??? Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him. "The British public hating him and not hating Boris says a lot about the British public, no? | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
The British public hating him and not hating Boris says a lot about the British public, no? "Yes, it tells you that British people like being British and don't want to become Venezuela | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." A thousand people dying a day is not a victory. It’s a bit weird that you’re so pressed about the predictions of experts being wrong when we are still one of the worst affected countries and we still have thousands of innocent people dying. I just feel like this thread is in bad taste and completely offensive to people that have been let down by this government and paid with their lives during this pandemic. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
The British public hating him and not hating Boris says a lot about the British public, no? "Democracy in action, who’s to say what next time will bring | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him. "My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
The British public hating him and not hating Boris says a lot about the British public, no?
Yes, it tells you that British people like being British and don't want to become Venezuela "Lmao!  ok | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
The British public hating him and not hating Boris says a lot about the British public, no?
Democracy in action, who’s to say what next time will bring "My money is on the Tories again and Boris again. Because he is exactly the kind of man the British public think represents their views. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him. "The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail. "I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail.
I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing."Go for it. I’ll play devil’s advocate and rebut the assertion the Mail is right wing. Who’s to say I’m wrong and you’re right? | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion. Buy another paper or read another online source. I could say exactly the same as you about the Sun, Daily Fail and many other news sources. Just because my views and opinions differ from those they publish. What do you consider to be a balanced, accurate source of news? I'm honestly curious.
A
True about the sun, daily fail. All newspapers are biased. I personally read bbc to follow news in general. They are also biased in some cases. But less hyperbolic. If I see some news of interest, I do a news search to read multiple opinions on it.
I wouldn't say the guardian Is hyperbolic.
I think that and the independent are the only centre papers we have in this country and act as a counterbalance to the likes of the mail and the rag.
Questions should have been asked about this..and they are the only ones doing it...and piers morgan
The guardian is centre?
The guardian is daily mail of left. Daily mail is guardian of right.
You consider it centre even after that 'privileged pain' editorial?
The only left wing newspaper in this country is the barely read socialist worker.
It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing.
You say that because it fits your ideology as already highlighted. Equally a Mail etc reader would argue exactly the same point in reverse.
Ok so you are saying the guardian and socialist worker are both ideologically the same?
I didn’t mention the Socialist Worker so that’s irrelevant "The socialist work is a left wing paper If the guardian is as left as you suggest they would be on the same page no? | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail.
I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing.
Go for it. I’ll play devil’s advocate and rebut the assertion the Mail is right wing. Who’s to say I’m wrong and you’re right? "You are being silly now. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him. "Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017? | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail.
I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing.
Go for it. I’ll play devil’s advocate and rebut the assertion the Mail is right wing. Who’s to say I’m wrong and you’re right?
You are being silly now."No, I’m pointing out how folk view their ideologies...which is how this debate started. If someone believes something strong enough they’ll consider themselves to be central because that belief for them is the norm. Therefore anything or anyone who contradicts their belief will sit either to the right or left of them. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail.
I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing."Are you sure you know what left wing is? It's the non-binary, vegan types with pink hair that tweet from Starbucks to tell you how hard their middle class life is. Stand outside the guardian office and watch them arrive for work if you don't believe me | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017?
"You're referring to the election he lost but acted like he won, as opposed to the second time he got rejected | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
My point was that for a so called left leaning newspaper, it was constantly questioning Corbyn's suitability as leader of the opposition and supporting every claim against him.
The most damning thing I've ever seen is a compilation of his own quotes. I doubt more than 1% of guardian readers voted conservative and they probably ticked the wrong box by accident. Nobody on the fence would read that or the daily fail.
I'll try one more time. I'm not discussing Corbyn's success or failure, nor am I claiming the Guardian is responsible for his success or failure. I'm rebutting the assertion that the Guardian is left wing.
Are you sure you know what left wing is? It's the non-binary, vegan types with pink hair that tweet from Starbucks to tell you how hard their middle class life is. Stand outside the guardian office and watch them arrive for work if you don't believe me" superb | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017?
You're referring to the election he lost but acted like he won, as opposed to the second time he got rejected "You didnt answer the question. | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017?
You're referring to the election he lost but acted like he won, as opposed to the second time he got rejected
You didnt answer the question."I reject the premise of the question | |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017?
You're referring to the election he lost but acted like he won, as opposed to the second time he got rejected
You didnt answer the question.
I reject the premise of the question "Course you do. | |||
| |||
" It shows you how far right this counyty had lurched when the guardian can be described as left wing. No it just shows what a raving commy you are that the guardian isn't left wing enough for you. Raving commy?
Superb
Fuck me, the Guardian is not in the slightest left wing. They spent so much time undermining Corbyn. At best it centrist, at worst it's woke hyperbolic click bait
Yes comrade, it was all a plot against Corbyn. Couldn't just be that most the british public hated him.
Did most of the British public hate when he forced Teresa may into a minority gmnt in 2017?
You're referring to the election he lost but acted like he won, as opposed to the second time he got rejected
You didnt answer the question.
I reject the premise of the question
Course you do."Never has a politician been so smug about coming second in an election! The epitome of a protest movement | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life." You're linking to an article which, whilst presenting the results of the model, also contains substantial quotes from people saying that the model is wrong. It's just a bit of reporting. Chill your bias. As a comparison to the other end of the political spectrum, pop 'covid 19 daily mail' into google, and see how many stories 'reduce negativity in life' | |||
| |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion." I googled that article. Have you read it? I suspect not, or if you did, you've lost your sense of humour. It's in the comments section of the Guardian, and it's a piece sending up Boris Johnson - I particularly liked this bit. 'The key message,” Johnson key-messaged on Tuesday, is that people follow the advice “sedulously”. Ah, sedulously. Sedulously. The signal for 10 million hardworking families to draw down the leather-bound thesaurus from their shelves and browse synonyms for the word “twat”.' If you think other people shouldn't be allowed to send up St Boris of Gammonville, that's your decision. However, that puts you in the same category as people who objected to Ben ELton being on telly in the 80s doing jokes about Margaret Thatcher... | |||
"Just wanted to bring back a discussion we had on this forum one week ago: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1003265 It was based on the fraudian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts Some experts made a prediction that UK will have worst death toll. According to their projections, UK will have close to 2500 deaths per day by now. We are not even close to it now. As usual, the guardian whose only job these days is to scavenge for news which show that the UK is doomed, has published this. And people on that fab thread went mad. Maybe we should take these expert future predictions with a pinch of salt. And yes, staying away from the guardian helps if you want to reduce negativity in life.A chill pill is possibly required. Newspapers are not football teams - you don't have to support them or hate them. The Guardian see their job as being to report a range of voices, and to allow readers to sue their critical skills to draw their own conclusions. In a crisis of unparalleled impacts, academics will produce individual reports that function as boundaries for debate, not precise predictions of what will happen. If that frustrates you, then try and imagine what kind of state would oppsoe the Guardian being free to report a range of voices. I'll give you a clue, it will be the kind of state where minorities don't do well, and like it or not, if you're here, you're in a minority. Call it Pastor Niemoller's law - if you want to be free to be you, you have to let others be free to them, and that means respecting their right to have a voice, even if you disagree. No one told they should be banned. No one told they should not have a voice. Where did those assumptions come from? They have the right to write whatever bullshit they want. I have the right to crticise that. Maybe the guardian used to be that newspaper which shows a range of opinions. As of recently, its focus has been to show that Britain is falling walking towards doomsday. I have seen this trend ever since Brexit was going to happen. And the guardian doesn't stop with reporting events. One of its recent articles began by saying "Britain, a nation of shopfighters". Britain has shopfighters, true. Is Britain a nation of shopfighters? That's just some bullshit opinion.I googled that article. Have you read it? I suspect not, or if you did, you've lost your sense of humour. It's in the comments section of the Guardian, and it's a piece sending up Boris Johnson - I particularly liked this bit. 'The key message,” Johnson key-messaged on Tuesday, is that people follow the advice “sedulously”. Ah, sedulously. Sedulously. The signal for 10 million hardworking families to draw down the leather-bound thesaurus from their shelves and browse synonyms for the word “twat”.' If you think other people shouldn't be allowed to send up St Boris of Gammonville, that's your decision. However, that puts you in the same category as people who objected to Ben ELton being on telly in the 80s doing jokes about Margaret Thatcher..." Again, more hyperbole from probably, a regular guardian reader. I understand the message and I am not a big fan of Boris myself. Just like another poster above, you assumed that I don't want to 'disallow' guardian from publishing this. The moment someone criticises the left wing media or politicians, it becomes a matter of oppression like you said or a matter of class privilege like the other poster said. That particular article begins with a lie/ a stupid generalisation of a large population. This is exactly the kind of generalisation the right wing media does. They do it on different groups of people. But for some reason, the guardian is in a higher moral pedestal whereas the sun and daily mail are trash. In truth, the sun, daily mail and the guardian all belong to the same place - trash. And btw, humour? Seriously? You do know that 'humour' is the excuse used by trump supporters to defend his lies, right? | |||
