On 06/11/2021 11:00, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> 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.

LOL! Best laugh for a while! Tx.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 06/11/2021 13:15, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADDA8364BD0B837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

No, it's not the only question, there's also "Do the graphs he's showing
refer to the same thing as the other media he's been criticising?", and
they don't. As already pointed out, the BBC's "Covid-19 in the UK"
figures refer to the whole of the UK - except some stats specifically,
clearly, and unmistakably broken down into nations &/or regions -
while the GBNews graphs were for England only, so they are NOT referring
to the same thing, they are NOT comparing like with like. Further the
BBC News article criticised seems to have been based on the ONS findings
linked up thread, which referred to ...

"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%)."

.... while the graphs that he used to criticise the BBC item referred to
"English cases in under-19s", so again he's not comparing like with like.

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

No, probably he's not lying, because I think his figures are probably
correct as shown, but he is MISLEADING because he's not comparing like
with like.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.
>
The classic correlation <> causation thing.

--
Chris Green
·

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@omitthisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Even if they *are* real correlations it doesn't mean anything unless
you can show there is some causation of one thing by the other. The
above fridges/crime probably isn't a coincidence, it's just that
*both* these things have been influenced by some sort of common cause.

So, I surmise, maybe increasing incomes in the 1950s meant that we
could afford more fridges *and* that there were more things worth
stealing in our houses which attracted burglars.

--
Chris Green
·

In article <ohli5i-djcp1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> 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.
> >
> The classic correlation <> causation thing.

precisely

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

On 06/11/2021 10:30, charles wrote:
> 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.

I had the same experience at the age of 15. I haven't believed a word in
the papers every since.

Bill

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 04:41:39 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> 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:
>
and has his head stuck in the sand !

> [
> 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
>

Well indeed if you look at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ there has been slight decrease in cases during the last fortnight from ~51k to ~40k.

Alas there HAS been a fairly steady increase in deaths with the seven day moving average* - from 108 on seventh October to 171 yesterday - perhaps the CNN reporter confused the two.

>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!

This fake news certainly could do!

* smooths out the weekend fluctuations cause by lower notifications.

On 06/11/2021 17:00, williamwright wrote:
>
> There's a direct correlation between the number of black people on the
> telly and my blood pressure.

Which merely tells the world that you're a racist bigot, but we knew
that already.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13:15 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> 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.

It rather depends if presenter Harwood understands what the graph
truly represents, before comparing it to another. He made the mistake
of using different age ranges for the schoolchildren and he's also
assumed the methodology of the two studies are equivalent.

As a politics graduate, my guess is he doesn't have any formal
education in maths or stats beyond what he had learnt by the age of
16. I would be astonished if a prospective politics student would take
a A-level in maths in the sixth form. He's a complete lightweight.

Harwood's central premise is that the "media" are failing to report
certain facts. Yet he offers no proof whatsoever of these omissions.
All the viewer has to go on is his repeated assertion.

Furthermore he makes the presumption that the media should report what
he personally considers important, as if they are an agent of his
propaganda. Puh-leeze.

On 17:00 6 Nov 2021, williamwright said:

> 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's a direct correlation between the number of black people on
> the telly and my blood pressure.
>
> Bill

What magic does your raised blood pressure do to make more black people
appear on the telly? :)

In article <XnsADDACE11B534A37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13:15 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> > 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.

> It rather depends if presenter Harwood understands what the graph
> truly represents, before comparing it to another. He made the
> mistake of using different age ranges for the schoolchildren and
> he's also assumed the methodology of the two studies are
> equivalent.

> As a politics graduate, my guess is he doesn't have any formal
> education in maths or stats beyond what he had learnt by the age of
> 16. I would be astonished if a prospective politics student would
> take a A-level in maths in the sixth form. He's a complete
> lightweight.

> Harwood's central premise is that the "media" are failing to report
> certain facts. Yet he offers no proof whatsoever of these
> omissions. All the viewer has to go on is his repeated assertion.

> Furthermore he makes the presumption that the media should report
> what he personally considers important, as if they are an agent of
> his propaganda. Puh-leeze.

In all that twisting, turning and wriggling I notice you don't answer
the question.

Can't think why.

Bob.

On 09:57 7 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsADDACE11B534A37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13:15 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> > 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.
>
>> It rather depends if presenter Harwood understands what the graph
>> truly represents, before comparing it to another. He made the
>> mistake of using different age ranges for the schoolchildren and
>> he's also assumed the methodology of the two studies are
>> equivalent.
>
>> As a politics graduate, my guess is he doesn't have any formal
>> education in maths or stats beyond what he had learnt by the age of
>> 16. I would be astonished if a prospective politics student would
>> take a A-level in maths in the sixth form. He's a complete
>> lightweight.
>
>> Harwood's central premise is that the "media" are failing to report
>> certain facts. Yet he offers no proof whatsoever of these
>> omissions. All the viewer has to go on is his repeated assertion.
>
>> Furthermore he makes the presumption that the media should report
>> what he personally considers important, as if they are an agent of
>> his propaganda. Puh-leeze.
>
> In all that twisting, turning and wriggling I notice you don't
> answer the question.
>
> Can't think why.
>
> Bob.

I explained that you can not read a graph correctly if you
misinterpret what it shows. Geddit? Maybe I used too many long words
for you previously.

In article <5987236ad5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> 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. You simply keep displaying your own wilful ignorance when you write
assertions like the above.

A 'graph' is simply a pretty pattern unless you understand correctly how it
relates to the information it purports to 'show'.

Failing that understanding it just becomes "baloney baffle brains". Trick
familiar to con-men and the ad biz and politicials over the ages.

Jim

--
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

In article <XnsADDACE11B534A37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a politics graduate, my guess is he doesn't have any formal
> education in maths or stats beyond what he had learnt by the age of 16.
> I would be astonished if a prospective politics student would take a
> A-level in maths in the sixth form. He's a complete lightweight.

You've reminded me of a story David Speiglhalter (spelling?) used to tell.
IIRC...

This was that the people producing 'risk assessments' for politicians used
to produce a pretty 'graph' as they thought this would help the PPE grads
and non-grads to understand what the data showed.

They plotted the relative likelyhood and impact of various types of event on
a log-scale as that made it easier - so they thought - to compare the wide
range of results.

But they then found the politicians (and many civil servants) misunderstood
and made mistakes... because they simply didn't understand how to make
sense of a log-plot! So they went over to linear which made the relative
risks clearer to the politicians.

More recently, I've had a distinct impression that most politicians are
also clueless about exponential rise/decay and feedback effects.

Jim

--
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 Saturday, 6 November 2021 at 20:18:03 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> On 17:00 6 Nov 2021, williamwright said:
>
> > 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's a direct correlation between the number of black people on
> > the telly and my blood pressure.
> >
> > Bill
> What magic does your raised blood pressure do to make more black people
> appear on the telly? :)

It will cause a central serous retinopathy, I had one for a week or two about a decade ago. Things in the affected eye(s) appear darker and you get a dark blob where the retina has bulged. Yes really!

On 07/11/2021 10:04, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> They plotted the relative likelyhood and impact of various types of event on
> a log-scale as that made it easier - so they thought - to compare the wide
> range of results.

The Liberals are notorious for using dodgy graphs like that.

In article <598794beebnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> Bob. You simply keep displaying your own wilful ignorance when you
> write assertions like the above.

Attack the person AGAIN! No surprise standard approach for the nasty
left.

> A 'graph' is simply a pretty pattern unless you understand
> correctly how it relates to the information it purports to 'show'.

> Failing that understanding it just becomes "baloney baffle brains".
> Trick familiar to con-men and the ad biz and politicials over the
> ages.

Here are the two graphs as shown on the news item.

Overall.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases1.jpg

School age.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases2.jpg

From your 'expert' POV.

Now which of these descriptions is the best description of what they
show ??

Harwood: Cases have been falling for two weeks.

or..

CNN: case numbers are spiking.
Sky News: Coronavirus epidemic escaliting by the day.
BBC: With cases rising in school age children.

Those graphs are going down if you think otherwise insanity rules and
perhaps you believe in unicorns or pregnant men.

You might argue about the validity of the graphs but there is no way
to interpret them as other than falling however 'clever' you are.

Bob.

On 09:53 7 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <5987236ad5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> 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. You simply keep displaying your own wilful ignorance when you
> write assertions like the above.
>
> A 'graph' is simply a pretty pattern unless you understand correctly
> how it relates to the information it purports to 'show'.
>
> Failing that understanding it just becomes "baloney baffle brains".
> Trick familiar to con-men and the ad biz and politicials over the
> ages.
>
> Jim

Google has several examples.

"Data (Mis)representation and COVID-19: Leveraging Misleading Data
Visualizations ..."
https://tinyurl.com/remedial-graphs-1

"Stopping COVID-19 with Misleading Graphs"
https://tinyurl.com/remedial-graphs-2

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Coronavirus Graphs" (pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/remedial-graphs-3

On 13:50 7 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <598794beebnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bob. You simply keep displaying your own wilful ignorance when you
>> write assertions like the above.
>
> Attack the person AGAIN! No surprise standard approach for the nasty
> left.
>
>> A 'graph' is simply a pretty pattern unless you understand
>> correctly how it relates to the information it purports to 'show'.
>
>> Failing that understanding it just becomes "baloney baffle brains".
>> Trick familiar to con-men and the ad biz and politicials over the
>> ages.
>
> Here are the two graphs as shown on the news item.
>
> Overall.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases1.jpg
>
> School age.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases2.jpg
>
> From your 'expert' POV.
>
> Now which of these descriptions is the best description of what they
> show ??
>
> Harwood: Cases have been falling for two weeks.
>
> or..
>
> CNN: case numbers are spiking.
> Sky News: Coronavirus epidemic escaliting by the day.
> BBC: With cases rising in school age children.
>
>
> Those graphs are going down if you think otherwise insanity rules
> and perhaps you believe in unicorns or pregnant men. >
> You might argue about the validity of the graphs but there is no way
> to interpret them as other than falling however 'clever' you are.

A rapid rise in reaching a max (even if it remains there) is called
"spiking".

Harwood switches freely between data for the UK and for England.

Sky's "epidemic escalating" clearly refers to the whole picture including
hospitalisations and death rather than only case rates (which are a
function of how much testing is done).

Harwood's under-19 graph is a distraction because schoolkid cases have
been spreading to higher age groups where they are causing deaths. The
plateau in schoolchildren cases is clearly correlated to the mid term
holiday which ends tomorrow.

I don't recognise the graphs Harwood uses. Do you? Where has he got
them from? Most graphs show the data source but his don't. The official
ONS graphs don't show a 2 week decline as he alleges. See here:

https://tinyurl.com/ONS-stats-link

In article <XnsADDB90DB812EA37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> A rapid rise in reaching a max (even if it remains there) is called
> "spiking".

That's weak even for you.

> Harwood switches freely between data for the UK and for England.

> Sky's "epidemic escalating" clearly refers to the whole picture including
> hospitalisations and death rather than only case rates (which are a
> function of how much testing is done).

Pathetic. Harwood was clear - *falling for two weeks*.

> Harwood's under-19 graph is a distraction because schoolkid cases
> have been spreading to higher age groups where they are causing
> deaths. The plateau in schoolchildren cases is clearly correlated
> to the mid term holiday which ends tomorrow.

> I don't recognise the graphs Harwood uses. Do you? Where has he
> got them from? Most graphs show the data source but his don't.
> The official ONS graphs don't show a 2 week decline as he alleges.

Wriggle wriggle wriggle.

So you now concede that what the graphs show is clear and that
"interpretation" doesn't come into it. Thanks for the tacit admission.

You now realise that my assertion that graphs can't be
interpreted as anything but falling unless you're insane, you change
to argue that the graphs are wrong.

Glad we established that.

Bob.

On 18:57 6 Nov 2021, R. Mark Clayton said:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 04:41:39 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> 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:
>
> and has his head stuck in the sand !
>
>> 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/health
>> andsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/
>> coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights

> Well indeed if you look at
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ there has been
> slight decrease in cases during the last fortnight from ~51k to
> ~40k.
>
> Alas there HAS been a fairly steady increase in deaths with the
> seven day moving average* - from 108 on seventh October to 171
> yesterday - perhaps the CNN reporter confused the two.

Worldometers counts confirmed cases which is susceptible to the extent
of the testing effort, how many are still using the NHS reporting app,
whether resilient groups care to report their infection, correcting
recent results from the dodgy Wolverhampton lab, etc.

On the other hand the ONS undertakes a random-selected survey of the
public to measure true prevalence in the community, independently of
case reporting. The ONS data does NOT show a dip as their comparison
chart illustrates:

www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1470/cisreactinfections/index.html

Taken from: https://tinyurl.com/ONS-stats-link

On 07/11/2021 13:50, MB wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2021 10:04, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> They plotted the relative likelyhood and impact of various types of
>> event on
>> a log-scale as that made it easier - so they thought - to compare the
>> wide
>> range of results.
>
> The Liberals are notorious for using dodgy graphs like that.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion about the Liberals?

And there is nothing 'dodgy' about log graphs, there are circumstances
where their use is entirely justified, but the intended audience has to
understand them for them to be useful.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 07/11/2021 13:50, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <598794beebnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

[conveniently snipped context restored]

>>>> 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. You simply keep displaying your own wilful ignorance when you
>> write assertions like the above.
>
> Attack the person AGAIN! No surprise standard approach for the nasty
> left.

You are pathetic & puerile! You have three rational people now telling
you that the man is wrong and why, that at best he is misleading by
using different data without clarifying that he is doing so, at worst
he's downright lying, but, seemingly just because he's right wing, you
believe him against very good evidence to the contrary.

It was obviously premature for me to write that I thought your posts had
improved recently, now they're back to the trolling signal-to-noise ratio.

>> A 'graph' is simply a pretty pattern unless you understand
>> correctly how it relates to the information it purports to 'show'.
>>
>> Failing that understanding it just becomes "baloney baffle brains".
>> Trick familiar to con-men and the ad biz and politicials over the
>> ages.
>
> Here are the two graphs as shown on the news item.
>
> Overall.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases1.jpg
>
> School age.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/cases2.jpg
>
> From your 'expert' POV.
>
> Now which of these descriptions is the best description of what they
> show ??
>
> Harwood: Cases have been falling for two weeks.

Fine, but ...

> CNN: case numbers are spiking.
> Sky News: Coronavirus epidemic escaliting by the day.
> BBC: With cases rising in school age children.

.... as has been pointed out to you several times now, *DIFFERENT* news
media may have been using *DIFFERENT* government graphs, covering
*DIFFERENT* periods and *DIFFERENT* age ranges, and therefore he is not
necessarily comparing like with like, and, just like the media he is
slagging off, he fails to clarify this. And has also been pointed out
to you, anyway a fall of 2 weeks is not significant in the current
situation, we need to have falling cases for at least a month before we
can begin to hope that the virus is at last beginning to 'tire itself out'.

> Those graphs are going down if you think otherwise insanity rules and
> perhaps you believe in unicorns or pregnant men.
>
> You might argue about the validity of the graphs but there is no way
> to interpret them as other than falling however 'clever' you are.

Yes, they are going down, but they may not be the same graphs as other
news media are using, so as it stands without this information the
comparison is meaningless.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14:31 7 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADDB90DB812EA37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A rapid rise in reaching a max (even if it remains there) is called
>> "spiking".
>
> That's weak even for you.

The media uses "spiking" in ways which may not reflect everyday
language. I will ignore your ad hom attack on my person as it does not
help the discussion.

>> Harwood switches freely between data for the UK and for England.
>
>> Sky's "epidemic escalating" clearly refers to the whole picture
>> including hospitalisations and death rather than only case rates
>> (which are a function of how much testing is done).
>
> Pathetic. Harwood was clear - *falling for two weeks*.

Are you sure you're following this? Harwood was clear he's taking
issue about the last 2 weeks but the Sky comment he quotes loosely
does not refer to the last 2 weeks.

>> Harwood's under-19 graph is a distraction because schoolkid cases
>> have been spreading to higher age groups where they are causing
>> deaths. The plateau in schoolchildren cases is clearly correlated
>> to the mid term holiday which ends tomorrow.
>>
>> I don't recognise the graphs Harwood uses. Do you? Where has he
>> got them from? Most graphs show the data source but his don't.
>> The official ONS graphs don't show a 2 week decline as he alleges.
>
> Wriggle wriggle wriggle.

It is sadly becoming clear you don't understand the technical points.
Much of this must be going over your head. I should have realised this
when you said an epemiological analysis could be perfomed by anyone
who can see the slope of a chart (irrespective of what the chart is
showing).

Do you have any formal qualifications for subjects involving data
analysis?

In article <XnsADDBAD786159E37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14:31 7 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> > In article <XnsADDB90DB812EA37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have any formal qualifications for subjects involving data
> analysis?

It's the simplest of graphs.

Pathetic.

The graphs are going down. If you disagree you're an idiot.

The validity of the graphs is another issue.

Bob.