Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ah-so

  1. Regarding "all-cause" deaths of females, there is absolutely nothing of statistical note about 2021 apart from week 8. Was there a nasty car accident in that week that resulted in four more deaths in this age group? In fact, for the first three months, 2020 resulted in more female deaths. And no young females died in week 14 - it's as though they're being protected by something.
  2. If we use the current mortality rate of c.0.33% (as per my post yesterday), this would suggest 150,000 infections a day, which seems very high. I think we could hit 100, maybe more, but not 500.
  3. Did you miss the "fit young woman" bit? I know you have very strong opinions about who should be in the gene pool, but being female is not an underlying condition.
  4. We were averaging about 20 deaths a day last week from cases of about 6000 a day from about three weeks prior, so about 0.33%. If we extrapolate the latest numbers of c18,000 per day, using the same mortality rate will take us to about 60 deaths a day in about three weeks ceteris paribus. I think that's a reasonable estimate. However, whether we think it is worth locking down for is a separate question. Most of those dying are vaccinated.
  5. Are we meant to draw some statistical significance from this anecdote?
  6. The letter says that 12.6% pf the pregnancies ended in miscarriage and the rest in birth. What's the normal rate of miscarriage? Normally estimated at 10-15%, so the conclusion is...? Edit: see I am a bit late to this party and the topic has been done very clearly. Statistically the story is even weaker than I thought because miscarriages are recorded earlier than those pregnancies still ongoing which will make them disproportionately overrepresented if the trial is concluded early.
  7. Would definitely be very worrying, although a couple of things occur to me: - far more than 127 pregnant women have taken the vaccine. I am not aware of this being reported elsewhere, but if it were "spontaneous", and in such high numbers I think we'd have heard about it. - the link is to a Bitchute video, rather than the underlying research.
  8. Usually the medical establishment is wary of promoting treatments based on anecdotal evidence until they have been through proper trials for good reason - some may be effective, some may be ineffective, and some may be effective but have other side effects that outweigh the benefits. I wouldn't immediately reach for the conclusion that the establishment has been trying to suppress the results of a statistically significant finding of a medical trial.
  9. I'm surprised it's taken them so long to complete the study given that the observation period ceased in May 2020.
  10. Gut instinct can be excellent - the product of our experience and millions of years of evolution. It is however poor at some things which early tribesmen on the planes of Africa never had to deal with. Probability is a good example - there are lots of perfectly intelligent people who cannot get their heads around the Monte Hall paradox. It is completely counter-intuitive. Statistics often confuse us- as we have seen on this thread recently with Arpeggio and Dr Doom who are confused as to why vaccinated people are still dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated people.
  11. The mask culture in Japan is a bit odd. I think it started with people wearing them if they had colds so as not to infect those around them (sound familiar?). A number of people wear them to reduce hay fever, but it has also developed into a nationwide neurosis, with people wearing them all the time, even before the pandemic started. It's definitely grown over the past couple of decades.
  12. If it isn't settled, then it isn't settled - I can handle that. You seem sure that it is totally untrue and fictional propaganda.
  13. I think you are very good example of the anti-science moment. While I fundamentally disagree with Arpeggio, he does at least seek out supporting evidence for his stance, even if he misunderstand s it at times. You just take an ideological stance and reject all facts that you disagree with.
  14. Wow - you are carrying on with your total misunderstanding of statistics. Have you not noticed that even the other vaccine sceptics have not repeated the same or rushed to your defence? You keep on embarrassing yourself over this. I don't know if you've been trained to have some Pavlovian response to data posted on your Twitter feed but I suggest you stop*. I honestly only started posting on this thread because of the US election thread where you posted large number of impossible things before breakfast and I thought the fun would continue here (it has), but your risable misunderstanding of basic data doesn't do you, or the thread any good. *Actually, only if you want people to stop thinking you are an utter idiot, but this doesn't seem to be an issue for you. You seem to have fairly thick skin πŸ’ͺ
  15. Beliefs are very different to facts (see flat earth, homeopathy, religion etc). And you display a total misunderstanding of how masks work, even though it must have been stated to you a hundred times. In summary, the science says that masks work. However, some people who are ideologically opposed to the science choose not to believe it through egregious willful ignorance.
  16. No problem. I reckon you are top chap. Much as I mock you it's all on the internet, and I would be happy to meet to and have a pint*. As long as @makrkyh doesn't turn up. *Only theoretically
  17. I find this puzzling because you show a complete inability not understand basic statistics. Unsurprisingly you respond with a word salad rather than working through the couple of basic statistical issues that you obviously can't cope with. But relax. Some of us exaggerate our ability to appreciate red wine, how quickly we can run 5k, or our ability to understand basic statistics. Yours is the latter, mine is the former πŸ‘
  18. Was that some reference to something about cancer being the biggest killer in Japan? Whatever. You have twice displayed an inability to understand basic statistical reasoning, while several others all watch and mock your failing. Suggest you stay away from statistics in future and the mocking will stop. Rather like me and dancing.
  19. You are absolutely right - ultimately if you get nothing else, you will get cancer - the body is predisposed to it. There isn't always a specific cause, but some things just accelerate it if you are predisposed. Live healthily to stand the best chance (and practice what you preach, which I don't).
  20. What lie? You gave "reasons" and you have just described them in your post. And yes, you pointed out that one of the fact checker websites, with a long and venerable history which includes winning the Pullitzer prize received a smallish donation of TikTok last year, which somehow now makes it a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, which itself apparently wants to use its new power to support mainstream science. Their deviousness shocks me. Or is it that barmy conspiracy theorists are grasping at any straw to undermine mainstream science and promote fringe pseudo science? Anyway, aren't you meant to be getting your head around basic statistics today?
  21. Save me from this New Age wu. Look after your body, yes, it will broadly look after you. Unfortunately get the short straw and get cancer or something, don't follow the Steve Jobs' method.
  22. I got an invite too to bring my forward. Not going to have it at the weekend though in case I get some side effects - don't want to have them in my own timeπŸ˜‚
  23. No, I didn't listen because I would prefer to see the compiled statistics and whether there is any observable trend. And if the science changes, I will change my view too. What I do know is that personal testimony of individuals is often hopelessly unreliable, and even if reliable, is not alone statistically relevant. Everyone likes a good story, but in the real world we need to make decisions based on data.
  24. It's like biologists fall into all those who believe in evolution from abiogenesis and those who believe in creation and intelligent design. The latter are vanishingly small and written off as cranks by the scientific establishment, but some believe that there is a genuine scientific debate on the topic. [See also climate change] Edit: I see that Bob8 has basically just made the same point regarding creationists.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.