https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg

Bob.

On 04/11/2021 18:00, Bob Latham wrote:
> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg

Tom Harwood, a rather wet-behind-the-ears looking young tyke, rather too
full of his own self-importance, and not a very good speaker:

[
Paraphrasing: Criticises news media for saying that cases are rising,
when they've been falling for two weeks, including criticising the BBC
for saying that infection rates in school children were rising, but
actually the latter at least is true (scroll down):

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights

"Infections in England highest in secondary school-age children
29 October 2021

Overall, coronavirus (COVID-19) infections continued to increase in
England in the most recent week, with the percentage testing positive
still highest in those in school years 7 to 11 (9.14%)."

But in general, I'm not particularly interested in whether any one given
newspaper or TV channel has been getting the figures wrong, what really
matters is what is really happening with covid-19 infections and deaths
right now.
]

1:08 "Cases have been falling for two weeks"

This seems to contradict the ONS article linked above, though that may
be due to differences between the national data and the English data,
but either way, you can't draw any conclusions from that whatsoever,
because cases have been rising and falling continuously like that for
about 4 months, so a rise or fall of just two weeks is too short a time
span to draw any conclusions:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

[Then goes on a rant before introducing ...]

2:00 Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA

WTF? Why have they got an economist talking about health figures?

The rest is a to and fro between them oh-so-politely-and-professionally
slagging off quite a lot of the news media. Move along there, nothing
to see, except some particular comments:

CS:

2:50 "[...] it's not particularly interesting for them [journalists] to
see the government stick to a policy like getting rid of all
covid-restrictions in July, sticking to it, watching the virus gradually
tire itself out, and everybody getting back to their normal lives."

There is currently no evidence that the virus is tiring itself out.
Theoretically at least, it should do so eventually, because 46m have
been vaccinated twice and 9m have had the virus, which is known to be an
underestimate, so that means that at least 82% of the population should
have fairly good protection, yet it's still here, still fluctuating up
and down, still hospitalising and killing people.

TH:

7:35 [...] we've got the highest death rate in Europe, not true, we've
got the highest case rate in Europe, not true [...]

As usual with these things, he doesn't clarify what he's referring to,
so making himself as guilty as the other news outlets that they've spent
the last 5 minutes slagging off. In terms of total daily numbers at the
moment, we have the highest case rate IN THE WORLD at 41k, next highest
is Russia at 38k, but neither of those figures are weighted against
population size, which means that they're not very useful, and also the
BBC world pandemic page is currently omitting figures for N America,
while the US has its own graph, which means that we don't know any
figures for Canada. It is entirely possible that *currently* even after
population weighting, we have the highest daily case rates in the world,
let alone Europe, and, though I think this much less likely due to the
success of the vaccines in reducing the chances of severe illness and
death, perhaps even daily death rates as well. However, cumulatively
since the pandemic began, we are currently at 8th in overall death
count, 28th in population weighted death rate, both of which anyway are
far too high for a civilised country with a good health service.

As suggested above, we have had rises and falls in infections rates
since the beginning of July, and it's certainly too early to say that
infections are falling as they seem to be implying in the video. We can
hope they are, but it's way too early to be sure. We still have a
death-rate well above the background death rate for the time of year,
and about half the excess is covid-19. I've not heard much about the
other half excess, so will not speculate on it. Nevertheless, more
people are dying than there should be, and obviously that's a concern.
Currently the figures are that you're 32 times more likely to die of
covid-19 if you haven't been vaccinated, and there has been some
suggestion that a greater proportion of younger to middle-aged people
are dying than previously, because they weren't vaccinated.

Meanwhile, back at the same ONS page linked above:

"Self-isolation rules broken by one in five of those testing positive
for COVID-19
1 November 2021

Around one in five (22%) people in England testing positive for COVID-19
say they have not followed all self-isolation requirements."

And that's exactly the sort of foolishness that goes some way to
explaining, why, despite everything we've been through, we still have a
problem.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

As somebody pointed out, the lateral flow tests only are being done if
somebody thinks they are going to somewhere where it might infect a lot of
people. I'm guessing that just as there have always been, the tests are
variable in their numbers and many more people who feel well may well be
infected. However recent trials does seem to say that with such a high
vaccination rate in adults, that wearing masks in very crowded places has a
much bigger effect since these people are not so infectious and not for as
long.
It would seem almost impossible to actually measure this in any kind of
meaningful way in the normal population as it goes about its business.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:sm2cm1$5d6$1@dont-email.me...
> On 04/11/2021 18:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>
> Tom Harwood, a rather wet-behind-the-ears looking young tyke, rather too
> full of his own self-importance, and not a very good speaker:
>
> [
> Paraphrasing: Criticises news media for saying that cases are rising, when
> they've been falling for two weeks, including criticising the BBC for
> saying that infection rates in school children were rising, but actually
> the latter at least is true (scroll down):
>
> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights
>
> "Infections in England highest in secondary school-age children
> 29 October 2021
>
> Overall, coronavirus (COVID-19) infections continued to increase in
> England in the most recent week, with the percentage testing positive
> still highest in those in school years 7 to 11 (9.14%)."
>
> But in general, I'm not particularly interested in whether any one given
> newspaper or TV channel has been getting the figures wrong, what really
> matters is what is really happening with covid-19 infections and deaths
> right now.
> ]
>
> 1:08 "Cases have been falling for two weeks"
>
> This seems to contradict the ONS article linked above, though that may be
> due to differences between the national data and the English data, but
> either way, you can't draw any conclusions from that whatsoever, because
> cases have been rising and falling continuously like that for about 4
> months, so a rise or fall of just two weeks is too short a time span to
> draw any conclusions:
>
> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>
> [Then goes on a rant before introducing ...]
>
> 2:00 Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA
>
> WTF? Why have they got an economist talking about health figures?
>
> The rest is a to and fro between them oh-so-politely-and-professionally
> slagging off quite a lot of the news media. Move along there, nothing to
> see, except some particular comments:
>
> CS:
>
> 2:50 "[...] it's not particularly interesting for them [journalists] to
> see the government stick to a policy like getting rid of all
> covid-restrictions in July, sticking to it, watching the virus gradually
> tire itself out, and everybody getting back to their normal lives."
>
> There is currently no evidence that the virus is tiring itself out.
> Theoretically at least, it should do so eventually, because 46m have been
> vaccinated twice and 9m have had the virus, which is known to be an
> underestimate, so that means that at least 82% of the population should
> have fairly good protection, yet it's still here, still fluctuating up and
> down, still hospitalising and killing people.
>
> TH:
>
> 7:35 [...] we've got the highest death rate in Europe, not true, we've got
> the highest case rate in Europe, not true [...]
>
> As usual with these things, he doesn't clarify what he's referring to, so
> making himself as guilty as the other news outlets that they've spent the
> last 5 minutes slagging off. In terms of total daily numbers at the
> moment, we have the highest case rate IN THE WORLD at 41k, next highest is
> Russia at 38k, but neither of those figures are weighted against
> population size, which means that they're not very useful, and also the
> BBC world pandemic page is currently omitting figures for N America, while
> the US has its own graph, which means that we don't know any figures for
> Canada. It is entirely possible that *currently* even after population
> weighting, we have the highest daily case rates in the world, let alone
> Europe, and, though I think this much less likely due to the success of
> the vaccines in reducing the chances of severe illness and death, perhaps
> even daily death rates as well. However, cumulatively since the pandemic
> began, we are currently at 8th in overall death count, 28th in population
> weighted death rate, both of which anyway are far too high for a civilised
> country with a good health service.
>
> As suggested above, we have had rises and falls in infections rates since
> the beginning of July, and it's certainly too early to say that infections
> are falling as they seem to be implying in the video. We can hope they
> are, but it's way too early to be sure. We still have a death-rate well
> above the background death rate for the time of year, and about half the
> excess is covid-19. I've not heard much about the other half excess, so
> will not speculate on it. Nevertheless, more people are dying than there
> should be, and obviously that's a concern. Currently the figures are that
> you're 32 times more likely to die of covid-19 if you haven't been
> vaccinated, and there has been some suggestion that a greater proportion
> of younger to middle-aged people are dying than previously, because they
> weren't vaccinated.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the same ONS page linked above:
>
> "Self-isolation rules broken by one in five of those testing positive for
> COVID-19
> 1 November 2021
>
> Around one in five (22%) people in England testing positive for COVID-19
> say they have not followed all self-isolation requirements."
>
> And that's exactly the sort of foolishness that goes some way to
> explaining, why, despite everything we've been through, we still have a
> problem.
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

At best, most of the world's governemnts have been lying to us for over
20 months.
These lies have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and contributed
to hundreds of thousands more.
There are lies or hugely misleading takes on everything from
masks, lockdowns and business closures, to immunity, vaccines and PCR.
Billions of people are now somewhere between unstable and clinically
insane.
Worst of all are the Soviet levels of propaganda, censorship and
suppression.
Perpetrators control not just the mainstream media, but all of the major
internet social media platforms and search engines as well.

In addition, the world's economy has been reshaped to destroy the middle
class.

What's this all leading to? That's the million dollar question.

Some say things will get better in their own. They’re the cowards.

A large number of people still genuinely don’t know what’s going on, but
more and more of them are beginning to feel uneasy. They sense things
don't add up. This group of people won’t initiate anyting themselves,
but they might be willing to accept an alternative narrative that is
both plausible and true.

There are others who realise a global coup d’etat has taken place, but
are expecting an outcome that just enforces some restrictions on the
number of times we can fly, drive our cars, eat meat, or use the heating.
This is wishful thinking. If one considers the sheer scale of the
fraud, the risks involved, and its costs, the desired outcome is likely
to extend much further.

Many (myself included) believe we are witnessing a mass depopulation
agenda.

For 18 months many scientists have pointed out the myriad obvious
untruths being told, coupled recently with mass scale injuries and
deaths from the jabs, yet the lies continue thick and fast.

I fear we may be heading for a winter of torture, as those who were
jabbed start to become sick and die.

The government and media will blame the unjabbed for this; they will
accuse us of "incubating and spreading a new variant". This will be the
excuse they need to further ostracise us from society and perhaps even
to incarcerate us.

The level of mass brainwashing is such that almost nobody would object if
we were all taken away by the state, under the guise of 'public health and
safety'.

Here is a good article written in response to an email from the New York
Times with regard to mass jab injuries and the subsequent cover-up.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2021/10/31/what-i-just-told-the-new-york-times-about-the-complete-failure-and-disaster-of-the-covid19-vaccine-n2598286

Although not mentioned in the article, the numbers in VAERS are
reduced by an under reporting factor (URF). The URF appears to lie between
10 and 100. It’s not 1, that’s for certain. So in all probability there
are between 170,000 and 1.7million jab-induced deaths, in the United States
alone.

They've also done another clever little trick - if you die within 14 days
of your 2nd jab, you go down as an "unvaccinated" death from unrelated
causes. The excuse? "It takes 14 days for the jabs to work." That's how you
lie with statistics.

Here is an interview with a UK Funeral Director whistleblower, which
basically supports everything I've said regarding the scamdemic, the
state-sanctioned mass murder of elderly hospital patients, and the jabs,
in previous posts.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gigUyK3yLtMU/

I could post many more links but we'll leave it there.

(Yes JJ you're still blocked.)

On 05/11/2021 12:54, Alexander wrote:

A great deal of anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage that has been
reported to a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g

> At best, most of the world's governemnts have been lying to us for over
> 20 months.
> These lies have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and contributed
> to hundreds of thousands more.
> There are lies or hugely misleading takes on everything from
> masks, lockdowns and business closures, to immunity, vaccines and PCR.

Never ascribe to malevolence what is easily explained by incompetence.

> Billions of people are now somewhere between unstable and clinically
> insane.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this absurd claim (apart from, obviously,
yourself, because we can all see from your posts that you are insane).

> Worst of all are the Soviet levels of propaganda, censorship and
> suppression.
> Perpetrators control not just the mainstream media, but all of the major
> internet social media platforms and search engines as well.

Soviet bots are a problem on social media, or at least were at one time
until social media companies started to try to control them, I'm not
sure of the current state of play, but bots are probably still around.
However, while certainly a problem I have seen no reason to believe
their influence is anything like as great as you claim.

> In addition, the world's economy has been reshaped to destroy the middle
> class.

On the contrary, the people who are suffering most economically from the
pandemic are mostly those who were already disadvantaged and poor before
it began.

> What's this all leading to? That's the million dollar question.

Two men in white coats approaching you down a long white corridor
carrying a strait-jacket.

> Some say things will get better in their own. They’re the cowards.

Eh? Complete non-sequitur.

> A large number of people still genuinely don’t know what’s going on, but
> more and more of them are beginning to feel uneasy. They sense things
> don't add up. This group of people won’t initiate anyting themselves,
> but they might be willing to accept an alternative narrative that is
> both plausible and true.
>
> There are others who realise a global coup d’etat has taken place, but
> are expecting an outcome that just enforces some restrictions on the
> number of times we can fly, drive our cars, eat meat, or use the heating.
> This is wishful thinking. If one considers the sheer scale of the
> fraud, the risks involved, and its costs, the desired outcome is likely
> to extend much further.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this absurd paranoia?

> Many (myself included) believe we are witnessing a mass depopulation
> agenda.
>
> [Other equally absurd paranoia snipped]

If that was really true, the sort of people who would be 'first up
against a wall' would be the people pointing out what's 'really' (you
claim) going on, yet you are still here, which proves you are not
reporting reality at all, but are just another nutter.

> Here is a good article written in response to an email from the New York
> Times with regard to mass jab injuries and the subsequent cover-up.
> h t t p s : / / t o w n h a l l . c o m / c o l u m n i s t s / w a y n e a l l y n r o o t / 2 0 2 1 / 1 0 / 3 1 / w h a t - i - j u s t - t o l d - t h e - n e w - y o r k - t i m e s - a b o u t - t h e - c o m p l e t e - f a i l u r e - a n d - d i s a s t e r - o f - t h e - c o v i d 1 9 - v a c c i n e - n 2 5 9 8 2 8 6

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/

"Analysis / Bias

In review, Townhall almost exclusively publishes news articles that
favor conservatives and utilizes strongly loaded language such as this:
Shove It, House Democrats: Another Trump-Russia Story Blows Up. This
story is sourced from the left-leaning Axios and right-leaning Fox News.
In another article with loaded language, by Rush Limbaugh’s brother
David: Abortion Extremism Exposing Left’s Moral Contradictions, there is
not a single source listed to support Mr. Limbaugh’s claims.

In general, Townhall presents story selection that always favors the
right and uses negative wording to describe the left. There is little
balance in story presentation, with all information favoring the right
without presenting a left perspective or counter-argument. The opinion
columnists associated with Townhall have poor fact check records, such
as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Ben Shapiro. Straight news
reporting is generally sourced properly and factual, though worded in
favor of the right, while guest blog posts have an abysmal track record
with fact-checkers.
Failed Fact Checks

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “passed a rule giving the
agency unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the
reason, at any time it wishes.” – Pants on Fire
There were more people on welfare than working in 2013. – False
Many Somali teenagers used hammers to physically attack and injure
several passersby at a train station in Minneapolis in May 2019. –
Mostly False
“Ninety-four percent of small businesses will face higher taxes
under the Democrats’ plan.” – Pants on Fire
Says Ronald Reagan “got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap
oil.” – Mostly False
“The mayor of Livermore California explains Trump’s popularity and
success.” – False
Muslim organizations or a mosque kept most of the $238,634 raised
for the victims of an October 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life
synagogue in Pittsburgh. – False
Scientific evidence doesn’t support the wearing of face masks; “why
do you care if I don’t wear a mask? Doesn’t your mask protect you?” –
Inaccurate

Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on
consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous
failed fact checks. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 4/12/2021)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root

"Wayne Allyn Root (born July 20, 1961)[1][2] is an American conservative
radio host, author, activist, far-right political commentator and
conspiracy theorist.[3][4]"

So to the article itself which makes misleading claims about the covid
vaccination in the US, including claims about post-vaccine deaths which
are almost certainly false. Here's the prime example:

"Here are the VAERS numbers: Over 17,000 Americans are reported dead
from this vaccine -- mostly from strokes, heart attacks and blood clots.
[...]
This information is all publicly available and provided by the CDC. This
cannot be called "misleading" by anyone in the media. The very
definition of "misleading" would be to either disparage or ignore VAERS
and not report on it daily to your readers."

But you can go to the link below and try and replicate the claims, using
an online search form, and, contrary to the dubious figures quoted, on
one example search I tried, there were no deaths at all reported for
'HEART INJURY' following a covid-19 vaccine:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=AEC0344A2CEC1C2B9D175F30D60E

That's all I could check going forwards, but we can also go backwards:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total

The US population is just under 330m, and currently the proportion of
those vaccinated is ...
1 Dose 67%, this is the correct proportional figure to use
2 Doses 58%, these will be a subset of above
Booster 11%, these will be a subset of above

.... while 100,000 people die of blood clots every year, and 67% of that
is 67,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/infographic-impact.html

.... and 659,000 people die of heart attacks every year and 67% of that
is 442,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

.... and 137,000 people die of strokes every year, and 67% of that is 92,000.

Adding up these figures, we have that in a normal 67% subset of the US
population ...

67,000 +
442,000 +
92,000
-------
= 601,000

.... would die of blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes in a normal
year, which is 1,647 people a day, or over 46,000 in any given four week
period, such as in the four week period after receiving a vaccine. The
misleading figure of 17,000 in the article is thus entirely explained away.

This emphasises, yet again, because some time ago Alexander made
*EXACTLY THE SAME MISTAKE* with the UK figures, that post-vaccination
event figures have to be interpreted by knowledgeable experts, rather
than on-line fake quacks. Such figures contain every post-vaccination
event, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS CAUSED BY OR EVEN RELATED TO the
vaccine.

> Although not mentioned in the article, the numbers in VAERS are
> reduced by an under reporting factor (URF). The URF appears to lie between
> 10 and 100. It’s not 1, that’s for certain. So in all probability there
> are between 170,000 and 1.7million jab-induced deaths, in the United States
> alone.
>
> They've also done another clever little trick - if you die within 14 days
> of your 2nd jab, you go down as an "unvaccinated" death from unrelated
> causes. The excuse? "It takes 14 days for the jabs to work." That's how you
> lie with statistics.

On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>
> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>
> Bob.

Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics student
trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more about viruses and
epidemiology than lifelong experts?

In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> >
> >
> > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
> >
> > Bob.

> Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
> student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
> about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?

You don't need to understand anything of science to be able to tell
the truth about what a graph says especially if you show the graph.
All you need is an intent to impart information and not manipulate
public opinion.

He called them out for lying. End

Bob.

On 05/11/2021 17:38, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>>
>> Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
>> student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
>> about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?
>
> He called them out for lying. End

Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here. Yes, he did accuse them
of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
supporting him. Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. And
why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
someone with an authentic medical background?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17:38 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>> >
>> > Bob.
>
>> Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
>> student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
>> about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?
>
> You don't need to understand anything of science to be able to tell
> the truth about what a graph says especially if you show the graph.
> All you need is an intent to impart information and not manipulate
> public opinion.

While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is not
something you can show to an ignorant person and get an informed
response.

Attention-seeking Tom Harwood has little idea about the scientific
assumptions underlying any graphs in this debate. One can tell from
his very simplistic and selective ideas in the video. (He can't get
even get those right, such as the correct daily death rate).

In article <XnsADD9C02D991E837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is not
> something you can show to an ignorant person and get an informed
> response.

> Attention-seeking Tom Harwood

Oh right, nothing personal there then, I'm sure you gave him a fair
crack of the whip.

> has little idea about the scientific assumptions underlying any
> graphs in this debate.

> One can tell from his very simplistic and selective ideas in the
> video. (He can't get even get those right, such as the correct
> daily death rate).

I get the feeling you're stung by Tom being able to reveal main
stream media being economical with the truth. Does it help if I tell
you I don't like him either.

Are you saying the graphs he showed were wrong? They are available
for anyone to see.

Or are you saying his interpretation was wrong? I can't see that one
myself, a graph going down with no spikes is a graph going down even
to the simplest of people surely.

Bob.

On 05/11/2021 20:10, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9C02D991E837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is not
>> something you can show to an ignorant person and get an informed
>> response.
>
>> Attention-seeking Tom Harwood
>
> Oh right, nothing personal there then, I'm sure you gave him a fair
> crack of the whip.

FTR that's how he came across to me as well.

>> has little idea about the scientific assumptions underlying any
>> graphs in this debate.
>
>> One can tell from his very simplistic and selective ideas in the
>> video. (He can't get even get those right, such as the correct
>> daily death rate).
>
> I get the feeling you're stung by Tom being able to reveal main
> stream media being economical with the truth.

Why would anyone be stung if what he said was actually true? But how
much of it really is? The trouble is it's difficult to be convinced by
a rather inexperienced, if not downright juvenile, presenter who clearly
has little grasp of statistics and who consistently fails to make
meaningful distinctions between the different sets of statistics
involved. For example, the figures on the BBC's Coronavirus in the UK
page are for the entire UK, unsurprisingly, but the graphs he shows are
for England only.

Both the government and BBC websites do currently show a recent fall in
cases, that doesn't seem to be in doubt, although much of the period
since the fall began still lies within the range where data is still
being collected, so those figures may increase somewhat over the next
few days. However, the school-age children one seems directly to
contradict information from the ONS, so should I believe the ONS and the
BBC, or GBNews; obviously I'm going to believe the ONS and the BBC.

More generally, the purpose of a news channel should be to report the
news truthfully, so why are they wasting time doing such an
unprofessional thing as to slag off other news channels - however
professional the manner in which they attempt to do it, the actual doing
of it is in itself rather unprofessional. This tends to be a feature of
those who are interested in indoctrination - they have to distinguish
themselves from other channels as being 'the truth'. Personally, I
would never trust such a source.

> Does it help if I tell
> you I don't like him either.

No, because you still jumped to defend him and assumed that the
criticisms of what he said were merely motivated by dislike of him.
They weren't, they were motivated by suspicion that he may not be being
entirely honest.

> Are you saying the graphs he showed were wrong? They are available
> for anyone to see.

Yes, at least in part, because they disagree with recent ONS data.

> Or are you saying his interpretation was wrong? I can't see that one
> myself, a graph going down with no spikes is a graph going down even
> to the simplest of people surely.

I'm saying that I wouldn't trust him against a mainstream media source,
unless I could verify what he says independently.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20:10 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsADD9C02D991E837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is not
>> something you can show to an ignorant person and get an informed
>> response.
>
>> Attention-seeking Tom Harwood
>
> Oh right, nothing personal there then, I'm sure you gave him a fair
> crack of the whip.
>
>> has little idea about the scientific assumptions underlying any
>> graphs in this debate.
>
>> One can tell from his very simplistic and selective ideas in the
>> video. (He can't get even get those right, such as the correct
>> daily death rate).
>
> I get the feeling you're stung by Tom being able to reveal main
> stream media being economical with the truth. Does it help if I tell
> you I don't like him either.
>
> Are you saying the graphs he showed were wrong? They are available
> for anyone to see.
>
> Or are you saying his interpretation was wrong? I can't see that one
> myself, a graph going down with no spikes is a graph going down even
> to the simplest of people surely.
>
> Bob.

Java identified several inconsistencies for you, along with the time
they appear in the video.

Harwood's repeated criticism of all other media except his own, of
course, illustrates the point made by the conspiracy theorist expert I
quoted in another post here.

Harwood's whole video is twaddle falsely presented as scandal. He's
looking for an audience.

In article <5986b7a611bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
> > >
> > > Bob.

> > Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
> > student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more about
> > viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?

> You don't need to understand anything of science to be able to tell the
> truth about what a graph says especially if you show the graph. All you
> need is an intent to impart information and not manipulate public
> opinion.

> He called them out for lying. End

I'd need to see the graph, etc, to tell in any detail.[1] But it is easy
enough for someone who is clueless about science to misrepresent one and
thus mislead others who are also clueless.

Yes, you DO need to understand the relevant science to correctly interpret
presented data. Data only becomes information when you understand how it
was generated, etc.

Otherise you get foolishness like the 'two points paper' you referred to
ages ago, which is - scientifically - utter twaddle despite having pretty
graphs that 'prove' (sic) what was claimed. So, given your form, the above
may just be another example like that.

Jim

[1] But in general can't be arsed with looking at cherry-picked videos.
Life is too short. If the work is good it should be published in a
conventional form for examination and analysis.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:54:59 -0000, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:

>Many (myself included) believe we are witnessing a mass depopulation
>agenda.
>
>For 18 months many scientists have pointed out the myriad obvious
>untruths being told, coupled recently with mass scale injuries and
>deaths from the jabs, yet the lies continue thick and fast.
>
>
>I fear we may be heading for a winter of torture, as those who were
>jabbed start to become sick and die.

A conspiracy on this level is unbelievable for the same reason as the
one about the Americans never having been to the moon but having faked
it all in a studio. Too many people all over the world would have to
be in on the secret, and we all know the difficulty of keeping a
secret if more than one person knows it, especially if they work in
government.

We don't need to worry about mass depopulation. Mother Nature will
manage that all by herself.

Rod.

On 18:34 5 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
> In article <5986b7a611bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>> > >
>> > > Bob.
>
>> > Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
>> > student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
>> > about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?
>
>> You don't need to understand anything of science to be able to tell
>> the truth about what a graph says especially if you show the graph.
>> All you need is an intent to impart information and not manipulate
>> public opinion.
>
>> He called them out for lying. End
>
> I'd need to see the graph, etc, to tell in any detail.[1] But it is
> easy enough for someone who is clueless about science to
> misrepresent one and thus mislead others who are also clueless.
>
> Yes, you DO need to understand the relevant science to correctly
> interpret presented data. Data only becomes information when you
> understand how it was generated, etc.
>
> Otherise you get foolishness like the 'two points paper' you
> referred to ages ago, which is - scientifically - utter twaddle
> despite having pretty graphs that 'prove' (sic) what was claimed.
> So, given your form, the above may just be another example like
> that.
>
> Jim
>
> [1] But in general can't be arsed with looking at cherry-picked
> videos. Life is too short. If the work is good it should be
> published in a conventional form for examination and analysis.

Conspiracy theorists claim to have a knack for being able to interpret
graphs and other data in a way everyone has overlooked. Although they
claim "anyone can read a graph" they are usually the only ones who
can't interpret it properly.

Psychologists note conspiracy theorists are able to simultaneously
hold two contradictory views about the same event. Their views are not
based on reality, which means pointing out the facts has little
impact.

They hear the same facts as everyone else but then reach a wholly
contradictory conclusion based on those facts. I suspect this could be
a mild form of psychosis.

In article <XnsADDA622D4258137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20:10 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> > In article <XnsADD9C02D991E837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is not
> >> something you can show to an ignorant person and get an informed
> >> response.
> >
> >> Attention-seeking Tom Harwood
> >
> > Oh right, nothing personal there then, I'm sure you gave him a fair
> > crack of the whip.
> >
> >> has little idea about the scientific assumptions underlying any
> >> graphs in this debate.
> >
> >> One can tell from his very simplistic and selective ideas in the
> >> video. (He can't get even get those right, such as the correct
> >> daily death rate).
> >
> > I get the feeling you're stung by Tom being able to reveal main
> > stream media being economical with the truth. Does it help if I tell
> > you I don't like him either.
> >
> > Are you saying the graphs he showed were wrong? They are available
> > for anyone to see.
> >
> > Or are you saying his interpretation was wrong? I can't see that one
> > myself, a graph going down with no spikes is a graph going down even
> > to the simplest of people surely.
> >
> > Bob.

> Java identified several inconsistencies for you, along with the time
> they appear in the video.

> Harwood's repeated criticism of all other media except his own, of
> course, illustrates the point made by the conspiracy theorist expert I
> quoted in another post here.

> Harwood's whole video is twaddle falsely presented as scandal. He's
> looking for an audience.

you do have to remeember that if there is a story in the newspaper, for
which you know the full facts, the newspaper is invariably wrong. What
about all the other stories? I learned this at the tender age of 21 when I
featured in a local paper's story.

Daughter 2 once featured in the Daily Record - that story was wrong, too,
in places.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <5986bcbc77noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5986b7a611bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
> > > >
> > > > Bob.

> > > Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
> > > student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more about
> > > viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?

> > You don't need to understand anything of science to be able to tell the
> > truth about what a graph says especially if you show the graph. All you
> > need is an intent to impart information and not manipulate public
> > opinion.

> > He called them out for lying. End

> I'd need to see the graph, etc, to tell in any detail.[1] But it is easy
> enough for someone who is clueless about science to misrepresent one and
> thus mislead others who are also clueless.

> Yes, you DO need to understand the relevant science to correctly interpret
> presented data. Data only becomes information when you understand how it
> was generated, etc.

> Otherise you get foolishness like the 'two points paper' you referred to
> ages ago, which is - scientifically - utter twaddle despite having pretty
> graphs that 'prove' (sic) what was claimed. So, given your form, the above
> may just be another example like that.

> Jim

Many years ago, it was pointed out to me that one could draw a straight
line graph with one axis being ownership of refrigerators in the 1950s and
the other being the rising crime rate in the same period. I have a feeling
that there's a lot of this about.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <j5jcog9i5f5qqduj5ufgmm0uugnoltr32b@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:54:59 -0000, "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr>
> wrote:

> >Many (myself included) believe we are witnessing a mass depopulation
> >agenda.
> >
> >For 18 months many scientists have pointed out the myriad obvious
> >untruths being told, coupled recently with mass scale injuries and
> >deaths from the jabs, yet the lies continue thick and fast.
> >
> >
> >I fear we may be heading for a winter of torture, as those who were
> >jabbed start to become sick and die.

> A conspiracy on this level is unbelievable for the same reason as the
> one about the Americans never having been to the moon but having faked
> it all in a studio. Too many people all over the world would have to
> be in on the secret, and we all know the difficulty of keeping a
> secret if more than one person knows it, especially if they work in
> government.

> We don't need to worry about mass depopulation. Mother Nature will
> manage that all by herself.

perhaps she already is ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 10:33:48 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>Many years ago, it was pointed out to me that one could draw a straight
>line graph with one axis being ownership of refrigerators in the 1950s and
>the other being the rising crime rate in the same period. I have a feeling
>that there's a lot of this about.

Of course. Criminals have to keep cool or they'll be caught. It's
obvious really.

Rod.

In article <XnsADDA622D4258137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Harwood's repeated criticism of all other media except his own, of
> course, illustrates the point made by the conspiracy theorist
> expert I quoted in another post here.

> Harwood's whole video is twaddle falsely presented as scandal. He's
> looking for an audience.

Is the graph he shows in the video correct or not?

That's the only question.

From you I'm not picking up a valid criticism I'm picking up hatred.

Bob.

On 11:00 6 Nov 2021, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 10:33:48 +0000 (GMT), charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Many years ago, it was pointed out to me that one could draw a
>>straight line graph with one axis being ownership of refrigerators
>>in the 1950s and the other being the rising crime rate in the same
>>period. I have a feeling that there's a lot of this about.
>
> Of course. Criminals have to keep cool or they'll be caught. It's
> obvious really.
>
> Rod.

:)

On 10:30 6 Nov 2021, charles said:

> In article <XnsADDA622D4258137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20:10 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> > In article <XnsADD9C02D991E837B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> While a simple graph may be easy to interpret, a complex one is
>> >> not something you can show to an ignorant person and get an
>> >> informed response.
>> >
>> >> Attention-seeking Tom Harwood
>> >
>> > Oh right, nothing personal there then, I'm sure you gave him a
>> > fair crack of the whip.
>> >
>> >> has little idea about the scientific assumptions underlying any
>> >> graphs in this debate.
>> >
>> >> One can tell from his very simplistic and selective ideas in the
>> >> video. (He can't get even get those right, such as the correct
>> >> daily death rate).
>> >
>> > I get the feeling you're stung by Tom being able to reveal main
>> > stream media being economical with the truth. Does it help if I
>> > tell you I don't like him either.
>> >
>> > Are you saying the graphs he showed were wrong? They are
>> > available for anyone to see.
>> >
>> > Or are you saying his interpretation was wrong? I can't see that
>> > one myself, a graph going down with no spikes is a graph going
>> > down even to the simplest of people surely.
>> >
>> > Bob.
>
>> Java identified several inconsistencies for you, along with the
>> time they appear in the video.
>
>> Harwood's repeated criticism of all other media except his own, of
>> course, illustrates the point made by the conspiracy theorist
>> expert I quoted in another post here.
>
>> Harwood's whole video is twaddle falsely presented as scandal. He's
>> looking for an audience.
>
> you do have to remeember that if there is a story in the newspaper,
> for which you know the full facts, the newspaper is invariably
> wrong. What about all the other stories? I learned this at the
> tender age of 21 when I featured in a local paper's story.
>
> Daughter 2 once featured in the Daily Record - that story was wrong,
> too, in places.

Sloppy reporting is somewhat different to Harwood's allusions about a
media conspiracy withholding the truth about Covid.

On 11:24 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADDA622D4258137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Harwood's repeated criticism of all other media except his own, of
>> course, illustrates the point made by the conspiracy theorist
>> expert I quoted in another post here.
>
>> Harwood's whole video is twaddle falsely presented as scandal. He's
>> looking for an audience.
>
> Is the graph he shows in the video correct or not?
>
> That's the only question.

That shows where you are going wrong. The interpretation is the problem
as is his self-serving selection of data. Nor does he subtantiate what
he claims the "media" are saying.

Harwood's reliance on an economist as a "Covid expert" shows he's
clutching at straws.

> From you I'm not picking up a valid criticism I'm picking up hatred.

I dislike conspiracy theorists, espcially when their misinformation is
dangerous. I seem to recall not long ago you were strenuously defending
conspiracy theorists. Do you think the mainstream media is deliberately
misinforming you?

On 06/11/2021 10:33, charles wrote:
>
> Many years ago, it was pointed out to me that one could draw a straight
> line graph with one axis being ownership of refrigerators in the 1950s and
> the other being the rising crime rate in the same period. I have a feeling
> that there's a lot of this about.
>
There are a lot of these "correlations" that are actually coincidences.
My favourite is the claim that there is a direct correlation between the
volume of imports of bananas into the UK and the number of Welsh
Nonconformist ministers.

Jim

In article <XnsADDA8364BD0B837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Is the graph he shows in the video correct or not?
> >
> > That's the only question.

> That shows where you are going wrong. The interpretation is the
> problem as is his self-serving selection of data. Nor does he
> subtantiate what he claims the "media" are saying.

A graph going down is a graph going down. You cannot argue that it's
interpretation that's just idiotic.

The only question is, are the graphs he shows correct.

If so, he's right. If not then someone maybe him is lying.

That's it!

Bob.