Groan all over the place on Covid this morning

Watch
Justvisited
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Spot two pairs of conflicting sub-headlines in this image:
Attached files
0
reply
Justvisited
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#2
In case the attachment doesn't work, go to the website and search on "A bit of a mystery" - it's that block of headlines under "Coronavirus"
0
reply
GabiAbi84
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
I mean, id just assume from that that COVID cases in school are rising whereas overall they’re falling… not really conflicting IMO.
Last edited by GabiAbi84; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
username4986690
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
This is the problem with the world, you only want to read a title rather than reading the substance of the article.
Infection among pupils are rising, but overall case numbers are falling.
0
reply
Justvisited
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by DiddyDec)
This is the problem with the world, you only want to read a title rather than reading the substance of the article.
Infection among pupils are rising, but overall case numbers are falling.

Try engaging your brain before posting to avoid making a fool of yourself.
Try looking at the other discrepancy.

The point is, it's not a good look when bunches of headlines running in opposite directions are set almost next to each other on the page. This has often happened with the Groan. People complain about the Wail's shoddy standards but really someone at the Groan ought to look out for muddles like these.
1
reply
username4986690
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Justvisited)
Try looking at the other discrepancy.

The point is, it's not a good look when bunches of headlines running in opposite directions are set almost next to each other on the page. This has often happened with the Groan. People complain about the Wail's shoddy standards but really someone at the Groan ought to look out for muddles like these.
If you can't read beyond a title then that is a you problem.
0
reply
Justvisited
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by DiddyDec)
If you can't read beyond a title then that is a you problem.
If the Groan expects us to take it for the quality source it claims to be, I expect its titles to reflect their content, so that's not really the point. Can you cite from the relevant articles to show how they're actually in harmony despite initial appearances?

Statistically it actually makes no sense to say cases among school students are "soaring" while cases overall are falling. If a student tests positive their whole family has to take tests, so any spread would show up in other generations almost simultaneously.

Also, why are you persistently rude in your posts. Do you have Tourette's?
0
reply
GabiAbi84
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Justvisited)
Try looking at the other discrepancy.

The point is, it's not a good look when bunches of headlines running in opposite directions are set almost next to each other on the page. This has often happened with the Groan. People complain about the Wail's shoddy standards but really someone at the Groan ought to look out for muddles like these.
They aren’t going in opposite directions though…they’re talking about two different pools of people.
Where is the discrepancy?
0
reply
Justvisited
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by GabiAbi84)
They aren’t going in opposite directions though…they’re talking about two different pools of people.
Where is the discrepancy?
In my OP I said there were two pairs of conflicting headlines. So far the thread has dealt with only one of them.
0
reply
GabiAbi84
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Justvisited)
In my OP I said there were two pairs of conflicting headlines. So far the thread has dealt with only one of them.
Well, since the first “discrepancy” wasn’t a discrepancy I can only imagine your second perceived discrepancy isn’t either tbh.
0
reply
username4986690
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Justvisited)
If the Groan expects us to take it for the quality source it claims to be, I expect its titles to reflect their content, so that's not really the point. Can you cite from the relevant articles to show how they're actually in harmony despite initial appearances?

Statistically it actually makes no sense to say cases among school students are "soaring" while cases overall are falling. If a student tests positive their whole family has to take tests, so any spread would show up in other generations almost simultaneously.

Also, why are you persistently rude in your posts. Do you have Tourette's?
You took the screenshot so I'm sure you can go back and read the articles.

The thread is utterly pointless as you are trying to make a problem of something where there is no problem.

Please don't joke about serious mental health conditions, it is unnecessary.
Last edited by username4986690; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
!Capercaillie
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
I swear Guardian hate readers who only read it to find something to complain about are responsible for half the paper's revenue.
Last edited by !Capercaillie; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Surnia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Justvisited)
Statistically it actually makes no sense to say cases among school students are "soaring" while cases overall are falling. If a student tests positive their whole family has to take tests, so any spread would show up in other generations almost simultaneously.
But the rest of the family could test negative...
0
reply
HansLuben
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
The numbers are what ever the government wants them to be.
1
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by HansLuben)
The numbers are what ever the government wants them to be.
4000 deaths a day according to Comical Chris
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Justvisited)
Spot two pairs of conflicting sub-headlines in this image:
As the vast majority of cases among children do not result in hospitalisation, why do you think those headlines are "conflicting"?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Megacent)
4000 deaths a day according to Comical Chris
Are you seriously still banging on about this? I'll go through it again slowly, but fear that it will still be lost on you...

A possible 4000 deaths a day was a reasonable prediction for a worst-case scenario if no measures were taken.
Strict and wide-ranging measures were taken but even then it reached almost 2000 deaths a day.

Try this...
When England play San Marino and a pundit predicts that England could score 10 goals in a best-case scenario, but England are a bit lacklustre while San Marino defend their balls off and England only score 4 - was the pundit "lying"? Would you call him "Laughable Lineker"?
Last edited by QE2; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
Pretty sure you can have falling hospital admissions but still have a dire situation in the hospitals... they are hardly mutually exclusive or conflicting?
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by QE2)
Are you seriously still banging on about this? I'll go through it again slowly, but fear that it will still be lost on you...

A possible 4000 deaths a day was a reasonable prediction for a worst-case scenario if no measures were taken.
Strict and wide-ranging measures were taken but even then it reached almost 2000 deaths a day.

Try this...
When England play San Marino and a pundit predicts that England could score 10 goals in a best-case scenario, but England are a bit lacklustre while San Marino defend their balls off and England only score 4 - was the pundit "lying"? Would you call him "Laughable Lineker"?
No it wasn't a reasonable prediction for a worst case scenario. If I can use an analogy;

You think that Whitty is a weather forecaster who has data suggesting it will rain tomorrow. He tells us he is predicting rain, but fortunately it turns out to be warm sunny weather instead. You think that I'm accusing him of lying because it was sunny despite him predicting rain. And you're defending him by arguing that although his prediction didn't come to pass, he made it in good faith based on the data available to him.

But that isn't what happened. The data did not suggest that 4000 deaths a day was a reasonable worst case scenario. He was just saying that to scare us, so we would be compliant with another lockdown. The analogy is more like a weather forecaster who has data suggesting it will be warm sunny weather tomorrow, but they tell the public the data is suggesting rain. The data said one thing, Whitty told us it said something completely different. At best he was misleading the public.

The scientists complain about vaccine hesitancy but its their actions that are causing people to lose trust. They told us restrictions would only be for 3 weeks, they told us we'd go back to normal when the vulnerable were vaccinated, but they always go back on their promise and move the goalposts even further away. They told us masks don't protect the wearer, but I saw an article recently where it seems the narrative has changed again and now they do protect the wearer. It feels like 1984 and "We've always been at war with Eurasia" but its "Masks have always protected the wearer" even though a few weeks ago the narrative was that they don't. Eventually they just lose all credibility. People are just fed up of being lied to, and fed up of being labelled "anti science" when we call out scientists on their lies.
Last edited by Megacent; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Megacent)
No it wasn't a reasonable prediction for a worst case scenario.
I know this may come as a surprise to you, but simply repeating an already disproved claim does not suddenly make the claim any more valid.

If I can use an analogy;
This should be good...

You think that Whitty is a weather forecaster who has data suggesting it will rain tomorrow. He tells us he is predicting rain, but fortunately it turns out to be warm sunny weather instead. You think that I'm accusing him of lying because it was sunny despite him predicting rain. And you're defending him by arguing that although his prediction didn't come to pass, he made it in good faith based on the data available to him.
Poor analogy. We cannot affect the weather by our behaviour.
Here's how your analogy should look...
Whitty is a weather forecaster who is reporting on current heavy rain. He says that if you go out without your brolly you will get wet. You go out with your brolly and don't get wet. You then accuse him of lying for warning about the possibility of getting wet when you didn't get wet.

The data did not suggest that 4000 deaths a day was a reasonable worst case scenario.
Could you present this data please?

He was just saying that to scare us, so we would be compliant with another lockdown.
Erm, that's how many safety and protection issues work. If we aren't aware of the possible danger, we won't take steps to prevent it. Hardly rocket science.

The analogy is more like a weather forecaster who has data suggesting it will be warm sunny weather tomorrow, but they tell the public the data is suggesting rain. The data said one thing, Whitty told us it said something completely different. At best he was misleading the public.
So what was the actual, accurate worst-case scenario prediction for deaths if no preventative measure were taken? Please include references.

The scientists complain about vaccine hesitancy but its their actions that are causing people to lose trust.
No it isn't. The people who distrust science on this vaccine probably distrust science on everything. They also probably believe things like the CIA were behind 9/11 and the Rothschilds own all the world's banks.


They told us restrictions would only be for 3 weeks,
Who said that, and when? References please.

they told us we'd go back to normal when the vulnerable were vaccinated,
Ditto.
Also bear in mind that
1. New variants can render earlier predictions invalid.
2. People refusing to get vaccinated, wear masks, socially distance, etc increase the likelihood of new variants and slow down the return to normal.

People are just fed up of being lied to, and fed up of being labelled "anti science" when we call out scientists on their lies.
No. Some people are just paranoid, delusional, conspiracy theorists. There is literally nothing anyone can say or do that would make such people feel more comfortable about the situation.
Last edited by QE2; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (120)
57.97%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (23)
11.11%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (25)
12.08%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (17)
8.21%
I haven't started researching yet (11)
5.31%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (11)
5.31%

Watched Threads

View All