FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Died with or died from

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iker boy 69Man
over a year ago

midlands


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus."

Or even only suspected to have had it. Personally, i feel figures have been falsified, as how can it be 800 per day 6 weeks or so ago, then have all the beach gatherings, protests etc wher distancing has been none existant, yet only 15 deaths on monday

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ymph and ManicCouple
over a year ago

North East

Monday’s are always unrealistically low due to the weekend of little or no reporting every Monday since it’s started has been lower than rest of week.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ETSHAVEFUN1Man
over a year ago

bromsgrove

Mushroom syndrome.

Keep in dark,

Feed shit.

Welcome to England

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And now saying care homes are reporting deaths and fillings in certificates themselves, if they think it covid-19 then that's ok. No one checks because you can't touch an infected body, handy that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"as how can it be 800 per day 6 weeks or so ago, then have all the beach gatherings, protests etc wher distancing has been none existant, yet only 15 deaths on monday"

It takes up to 2 weeks for symptoms to even start showing up let alone be at the point where you start dying from it. 2 weeks will be the bare minimum for reliable figures.

Plus on weekends a lot of the deaths aren't reported until monday due to staffing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And now saying care homes are reporting deaths and fillings in certificates themselves, if they think it covid-19 then that's ok."

Who is "they" and why should we believe them that there's no-way to reliably infer someone as having died from covid?

Do you think they just drop dead with zero symptoms and they just tick a box called "died from covid" and that's all there is to it?

If so, what evidence have you got that makes you think that's a reliable inference either?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adMerWoman
over a year ago

Sandwich


"And now saying care homes are reporting deaths and fillings in certificates themselves, if they think it covid-19 then that's ok. No one checks because you can't touch an infected body, handy that."

Care homes are having to diagnose every illness etc, let alone death, at the moment because no gp is willing to come into the premises. Is that the care homes’ fault?

PS I work in a care home that has had no deaths or even illness from covid. Why?

Because we took sensible precautions very early on, which sadly means our residents haven’t seen family or friends for many months.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nvioletMan
over a year ago

Thanet/Kent


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus."

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The thing is, "with" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive because of you hadn't caught it, you probably wouldn't have died. 65,000 excess deaths so far is testament to the fact that your argument fails as soon as you start typing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

They are on a hiding to nothing if they only counted the known certain deaths from covid all the anti government supporters would say they are fixing the numbers and when they count all the deaths covid related they are accused of having the highest rate in europe.I know for a fact that people who have been in end of life care who have died its been put down to covid even though they probably only had a week or two left anyway.The true figures will not be revealed until a full year has past then they can compare yearly figures with the past 5 years figures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus.

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The thing is, "with" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive because of you hadn't caught it, you probably wouldn't have died. 65,000 excess deaths so far is testament to the fact that your argument fails as soon as you start typing."

Not really, virtually all hospital services have stopped, A&E numbers have slumped meaning that many have died that wouldn't have had they had treatment, until all the stats have been analysed we wont know.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

These things are not easy. You don't usually die from a car crash but from the injuries associated from it. Cancer is the same a horrible disease a lot of people die because of it not with it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ighugs69Man
over a year ago

Port Talbot

The nearest you're going to get to a real figure is the amount of deaths above the average for this time of year.

Last time I checked the ONS figures it was around 40,000 officially from the virus. But around 60,000 extra deaths more than normal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nvioletMan
over a year ago

Thanet/Kent


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus.

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The thing is, "with" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive because of you hadn't caught it, you probably wouldn't have died. 65,000 excess deaths so far is testament to the fact that your argument fails as soon as you start typing.

Not really, virtually all hospital services have stopped, A&E numbers have slumped meaning that many have died that wouldn't have had they had treatment, until all the stats have been analysed we wont know."

Whilst this is partly true, the excess deaths from lack of treatment for other things will be a small fraction of the approximate figure I've quoted. Even if it was a generous 10% that's still a horrendous figure. I'll add that this is despite a lockdown, albeit too late.

A&E figures have reduced partly because the fucking hypochondriacs are too scared to go to hospital and the other fuckwits who waste the NHS' money aren't getting tanked up down the pub of a weekend.

Now you've got the great unwashed not giving a fuck, shitting in a burger box because some cunt drove to fucking Barnard Castle because his eyes felt weird!

Sadly half the population is below average intelligence. Unfortunately this pandemic will probably skew Darwin's theory and lower the bar.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ommenhimCouple
over a year ago

wigan


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus.

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The thing is, "with" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive because of you hadn't caught it, you probably wouldn't have died. 65,000 excess deaths so far is testament to the fact that your argument fails as soon as you start typing.

Not really, virtually all hospital services have stopped, A&E numbers have slumped meaning that many have died that wouldn't have had they had treatment, until all the stats have been analysed we wont know.

Whilst this is partly true, the excess deaths from lack of treatment for other things will be a small fraction of the approximate figure I've quoted. Even if it was a generous 10% that's still a horrendous figure. I'll add that this is despite a lockdown, albeit too late.

A&E figures have reduced partly because the fucking hypochondriacs are too scared to go to hospital and the other fuckwits who waste the NHS' money aren't getting tanked up down the pub of a weekend.

Now you've got the great unwashed not giving a fuck, shitting in a burger box because some cunt drove to fucking Barnard Castle because his eyes felt weird!

Sadly half the population is below average intelligence. Unfortunately this pandemic will probably skew Darwin's theory and lower the bar.

"

Just a quickie..... wouldn’t you expect half the population to be below average? Ish?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You die with it not from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackandtheunicornCouple
over a year ago

liverpool


"Looking at the statistics it doesn't really clarify those who have died from the virus and those who have died with the virus.

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The thing is, "with" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive because of you hadn't caught it, you probably wouldn't have died. 65,000 excess deaths so far is testament to the fact that your argument fails as soon as you start typing.

Not really, virtually all hospital services have stopped, A&E numbers have slumped meaning that many have died that wouldn't have had they had treatment, until all the stats have been analysed we wont know.

Whilst this is partly true, the excess deaths from lack of treatment for other things will be a small fraction of the approximate figure I've quoted. Even if it was a generous 10% that's still a horrendous figure. I'll add that this is despite a lockdown, albeit too late.

A&E figures have reduced partly because the fucking hypochondriacs are too scared to go to hospital and the other fuckwits who waste the NHS' money aren't getting tanked up down the pub of a weekend.

Now you've got the great unwashed not giving a fuck, shitting in a burger box because some cunt drove to fucking Barnard Castle because his eyes felt weird!

Sadly half the population is below average intelligence. Unfortunately this pandemic will probably skew Darwin's theory and lower the bar.

Just a quickie..... wouldn’t you expect half the population to be below average? Ish? "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"

Whilst this is partly true, the excess deaths from lack of treatment for other things will be a small fraction of the approximate figure I've quoted. Even if it was a generous 10% that's still a horrendous figure. I'll add that this is despite a lockdown, albeit too late.

A&E figures have reduced partly because the fucking hypochondriacs are too scared to go to hospital and the other fuckwits who waste the NHS' money aren't getting tanked up down the pub of a weekend.

Now you've got the great unwashed not giving a fuck, shitting in a burger box because some cunt drove to fucking Barnard Castle because his eyes felt weird!

Sadly half the population is below average intelligence. Unfortunately this pandemic will probably skew Darwin's theory and lower the bar.

"

Two points, when you compare the number of days from first confirmed case to lockdown we were well inline with other countries and were advising on social distance and hand washing etc far more than France where we were from mid Jan to lockdown day there, just because the guardian and bbc tell you we locked down slower doesnt make it true.

Secondly half the population arent necessarily below or above average intelligence it's not worked out like that,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As mentioned...you have to allow for...

1... incubation period

2... Period of illness.. prior to signicant deterioration

3... Period of hospitalisation and attempted treatment

So imagine over the last week and the upcoming fuck up of idiots acting like idiots post 4th July...

Any second uplifting in numbers will be August..

Also you are reliant on people who become ill isolating themselves correctly..and some won't..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some people on here are just sooooo fucking superior to us mere mortals. You know who you are with your anti government rants.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I know for a fact that people who have been in end of life care who have died its been put down to covid even though they probably only had a week or two left anyway."

So if I know a guy who's got two months to live due to cancer, but is hit and killed by a car, does that suddenly mean it was the cancer that killed him? Or the car?

The whole point is to track the effect of the virus. To state that it's ludicrous to accept ad hoc explanations for deaths and then literally use one as your justification is... well... you should just realise it's really bad.

It doesn't matter if there are a subset of people who "would've died anyway". Despite the obvious trivialising of the value of any length of life given to an individual no matter how short, the stats show the most honest picture.

My partner had a family member die in recent years, but because they died so quickly they never got to say goodbye.

Are you saying there's no value in that person having maybe an extra week of life to at least get to say goodbye to their friends and family?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Secondly half the population arent necessarily below or above average intelligence it's not worked out like that, "

Umm... yes.. yes it is. That's exactly how that's worked out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"

Secondly half the population arent necessarily below or above average intelligence it's not worked out like that,

Umm... yes.. yes it is. That's exactly how that's worked out."

So you have two people with an IQ of 10 and 8 with an IQ of 140 , now tell me what that average IQ is and how many are above or below average

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ommenhimCouple
over a year ago

wigan


"

Secondly half the population arent necessarily below or above average intelligence it's not worked out like that,

Umm... yes.. yes it is. That's exactly how that's worked out.

So you have two people with an IQ of 10 and 8 with an IQ of 140 , now tell me what that average IQ is and how many are above or below average "

Would 10 people with wildly differing IQ be a good measure?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"

Secondly half the population arent necessarily below or above average intelligence it's not worked out like that,

Umm... yes.. yes it is. That's exactly how that's worked out.

So you have two people with an IQ of 10 and 8 with an IQ of 140 , now tell me what that average IQ is and how many are above or below average

Would 10 people with wildly differing IQ be a good measure?"
its an extreme example of course but it was to show how the average is worked out.

The average level only equates to half the population if half the people have an actual IQ that is above or below the average that is highly unlikely and would be the same with any measure

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Mean mode and medium...the range..and I don't mean the shop...

God a blast from my school days...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

So you have two people with an IQ of 10 and 8 with an IQ of 140 , now tell me what that average IQ is and how many are above or below average "

You're using a different measure of average to the measure they use for IQ so it doesn't count.

There is mean,median,mode,range and some other more statistical methods of average.

The average is also taken over a popuplation, so you wouldn't be able to get a population as you described. The IQ is defined by the variance between people. There's no such thing as an absolute IQ. You could have an IQ of 120 today and an IQ of 80 tomorrow based on the popuplation used to measure it.

It would simply always be 50% of people below 100 and 50% above (in the most simplest of terms that don't include more technical aspects).

The statement that 50% of all people are below average intelligence is correct.

The data is always normalised to a bell curve. It's the individual populations that are measured as postively/negatively skewed to the general populations for comparison.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wouldn't take it as an insult if you don't "get" the concept either.

There is nothing intrinsic to the statement that implies that intelligent people won't 'get' the paradox first time they see it.

There are lots of weird statistical outcomes that confuse even the most intelligent people.

But there is some humour in using the phrase to poke fun at people when called for.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire

Statistics simply twist numbers into whatever answer is wanted.

As soon as I hear the word 'percentage' used in an argument I just switch off...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"as how can it be 800 per day 6 weeks or so ago, then have all the beach gatherings, protests etc wher distancing has been none existant, yet only 15 deaths on monday

It takes up to 2 weeks for symptoms to even start showing up let alone be at the point where you start dying from it. 2 weeks will be the bare minimum for reliable figures.

Plus on weekends a lot of the deaths aren't reported until monday due to staffing."

But you should see an increase in infection, which isn’t happening

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickthelick2001Man
over a year ago

nottingham

Here's a link to NHS England daily covid death report, there are a wealth of figures on there, age location number of underlying health conditions ETC ETC. According to there figures the virus peaked on April 8 and has been in major decline ever since, and around 1400 are known to have died of covid, with no other underlying health issues.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR1Q_8ETCRs6UnoM05KlnMI2vBRSHvJeeiDDbhzWLEH0LmQea6wQ9m3sg9g

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"

So you have two people with an IQ of 10 and 8 with an IQ of 140 , now tell me what that average IQ is and how many are above or below average

You're using a different measure of average to the measure they use for IQ so it doesn't count.

There is mean,median,mode,range and some other more statistical methods of average.

The average is also taken over a popuplation, so you wouldn't be able to get a population as you described. The IQ is defined by the variance between people. There's no such thing as an absolute IQ. You could have an IQ of 120 today and an IQ of 80 tomorrow based on the popuplation used to measure it.

It would simply always be 50% of people below 100 and 50% above (in the most simplest of terms that don't include more technical aspects).

The statement that 50% of all people are below average intelligence is correct.

The data is always normalised to a bell curve. It's the individual populations that are measured as postively/negatively skewed to the general populations for comparison.

"
oh dear someone has used mr google and copy paste.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top