We will of course accept that site as accurate and genuine.
Professor Norman Fenton (university of London)
- Thread starter John the plumber
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,420
- Reaction score
- 2,095
- Country
I really don't know but if you mean the document you linked to then I don't think it is as clear cut as that.
Who has said that?
B
Brigade77
I can't remember, 'cos I am as I think I pointed out, incredibly stupid.
Forgive my stupidity, but I always thought that any test with only 2x possible outcomes could only ever hover around 50% if it is indeed inaccurate.
It's a bit like saying "we're going to toss a coin & if it heads it postive, if it tails it negative".
Unless I'm being far more stupider than my usual self, then I want to be tested by the test that shows the inaccurate test to be inaccurate.
Surely that test is the accurate one?
Sponsored Links
I don't know what you are referring to.
Is it the article that said the tests showed that 2.3% of the tests were false positives?
Is it the article that said the tests showed that 2.3% of the tests were false positives?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
B
Brigade77
Tests can come back inconclusive.
What if the coin landed on its edge?
I'm just a little upset, that those of us who pay tax, are paying for something which may as well tell us all we're pregnant.
The stupid ones are those who believe in anything they are told about 'accuracy' and 'death figures'!
Or a little bit pregnant?
The ONS already provide the data showing how many died of other causes.
we all know the methodology for the 28 days is used to enable a quick return of daily death counts -it doesnt mean its invalid or proves covid isnt real.
dont you get bored of posting something thats been thoroughly debunked
the stupid ones are the people who havent had the vaccine.
its only a little needle, now stop being a scaredy cat and get it done.
its a big money spinner for those connected to testing labs...ie Tory mates
No matter.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Johnson is a journalist, a media person. Themes that appeal to the government are cultural cliches - plucky inventors, innovation as something you do in your garage. These are the images that these media people can understand - invention as something that other people do.
Bojo likes these large pronouncements like a front page headline. Keep it simple, keep it bold. The public are not interested in nuance or facts but nostalgia and cliche, wrap it in the flag, appeal to nationalism and anyone who questions that is unpatriotic.
The irony is that so many of his supporters dislike the Media yet Bojo is a product of the Media.
The same ONS that this professor has just said has “exaggerated the statistics “
It’s been said multiple times by certain people that we should believe the experts,the scientists etc.
So are we now saying that we can only believe the scientists who’s information fits the agenda of your beliefs.
Cutting all the disagreements etc.
I’m at a loss as to how myself and others are/were told to believe the scientists.
We now have a scientist who has provided information.
Are we now being told by yourself that the scientists are wrong?
Do we believe the scientists or the ONS or both or which ever one suits a specific agenda.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects and publishes statistics on the economy, population and society using information from a range of sources including surveys (for example, social surveys such as the Labour Force Survey and Wealth and Assets Survey) and administrative data.
So do you believe the ONS or a scientist?
Sponsored Links
