A now then, now then cunting for..

Covid 19 modelling policy

MY late mother, rather gloomily, once told me that death was the ‘perfect statistic’: it came to us all and was completely unambiguous. You were dead or you weren’t. (The only known modern exception to this rule is Theresa May.)

Covid-19 proved my mother wrong. Death, unambiguous, final death, has unsurprisingly become the salient statistic by which the success or otherwise of Covid-19 policy is measured. It is nonetheless disastrous that it is so.

By themselves, recorded deaths are data, not information, information being data with value. When starting out on modelling anything, you first have to ask yourself what is the ‘value’ of this data? What information I am trying ultimately to glean from it? That may sound ridiculously obvious, but I can assure you that both what the data actually measures, and what value you wish to extract from it, are very often simply assumed. Even having decided these questions, before modelling can begin you must know whether the dataset you have collected is up to scratch. How complete is it? Has it got missing values? Are there intrinsic biases? If so, can they reasonably be corrected?

After all the brouhaha of the past few weeks, this vital truth has been missed: Professor Ferguson has rightly got a kicking for his execrable coding standards and the uncertainties it has introduced into his modelling, but the fact remains that the model was modelling the wrong thing.

At the risk of sounding callous, the fact that someone died while infected with coronavirus is not particular useful: much more informative is did they die with coronavirus, or from coronavirus? The distinction plainly matters enormously, and the failure of the government to make it, as well as the irresponsibility of the media, means our economy will now almost certainly undergo the worst recession for 300 years.

Let’s assume in some better parallel universe that the government did avoid disaster by conveying the truth that coronavirus is not a grave threat to the young and healthy; even then, our work is not done. Is public policy really to be oriented towards stopping people dying? No, afraid not. Death is certain one day. What we should really be trying to minimise is life shortening, and when we view coronavirus policy in such a light the glaring holes appear: most of those who die with it – though by no means all – appear to be frail and in their twilight years. However, there have been frightening reports of a surge of non-Covid-related excess deaths during the lockdown period, plus a huge drop in cancer screening, no doubt eventually costing thousands of lives. Were these non-Covid and Covid-related cohorts medically and demographically different? Can they be modelled? Is the continuing lockdown, never mind the huge recession to follow, therefore going to lead to more aggregate life-shortening than ending it now would?

Whether or not lockdown was justified originally, it is surely crucial to ask these questions now. However, I fear that we will not do so: in our rich and plentiful lives, death is regarded not as an inevitability but as a scandal. That does not, of course, absolve politicians from treating us like adults and levelling with us about the hard choices that must be made. Nor, I am afraid, does it absolve the even more appalling performance of the Church, which for once had a crucial role to play in comforting the population and preparing them to face these intensely painful realities, but instead opted to excommunicate itself from the British people.

Of course, there are even larger and better philosophical questions concerning lockdown, some even more important than individual life and death: the long-term effect on freedom, state power and our culture, quality of life for example, and so on. However, even in the relatively narrow confines of modelling we are failing: the most sophisticated, most brilliantly coded models, fed with tip-top quality data, are worthless if the question  you ask is wrong.

Nominated by Simmy Javile

TIM MATTHEWS:

PLease prepare to put on your rubber knickers as you piss yourself laughing at the “joke” that is balding bespectacled Mr. Matthews.

Who is he? well he is the motherfucker who reported a second sighting of Dominic C* mmings last week, but it was a “joke”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372911/Boris-puts-Dominic-Cummings-chance-one-witness-admits-sighting-aide.html

I hope the cunt gets to laugh some more and the police arrest him for wasting their time, and for a really side-splitting routine he could receive a custodial sentence since this must fall under the “attempting to pervert the course of justice” law.

As ever Guardian readers and up-their-own-arse Remainers are continuing to stir the shit. Perhaps Unkle Terry should be encouraged to do his worst.

Nominated by W. C. Boggs

Polygamy

As evidenced in the TV series ‘Sister Wives’. Fuck’s sake he has 4 of them. ‘Kody’ is his name. A real true life Mr Joyboy – always bounding around and appearing suddenly in front of one of them. They treat him like a big kid. It’s all great fun for him.
Not so for the wives. The production is actually a very penetrating, searching look at their lives. They are nearly always on the edge of tears;. trying to check their emotions, feelings. They smile through their heartache. He goes to a different wife every night.
In the theology they have to almost literally ‘worship’ Kody but also they have to ‘love’ their ‘Sister’ wives. That is the theology-they are one big happy family supposedly. But its not like that in reality. They are from a Mormon splinter group. The main body now disavows ‘plural marriage’.
You know I don’t mind Mormons. I like Mitt Romney, The Osmonds. And when they knock on the door I always give them a bit of time.
But this plural marriage is a lie. Or the wrong idea. You cannot ‘share’ yourself like that. It is too much to ask.
There is one wife who I really like. I wish she would get the hell out. But she has her beliefs.

Nominated by Miles Plastic

Anthony Joshua

Another twat showing his true “colours”.
This racist twat urges his “people” to only support black businesses to help “uplift” the “community “. To boycott whitey. The only good thing coming from this shit is the volume of complete cunts exposing their true “selves”. This racist twat deserves a proper cunting. Paper champion not fit to lace Tyson Fury’s boots!

Nominated by: Cuntfinder General

Cuntybollocks doubled down with this:

A left-right combo from an obese Mexican cunting for this cheeky fucker.

He seemed a nice bloke whenever I saw him interviewed. However, it seems like he’s either a cunt or just another thick boxer, easily manipulated by others (like Ali). I’m leaning towards cunt as he doesn’t seem stupid to me when interviewed.

This cunt turned up at the George Floyd riots to tell everyone not to buy things from white people from now on.

Can you imagine if Tyson Fury said, ‘Don’t buy anything from black people’ the next time a honkey is killed by a black person? His feet wouldn’t touch the fucking ground. Would the BBC be not only be ignoring such comments, but praising him and giving him platforms to continue his rhetoric?

Well, as a boxing fan Anthony, I can now say that I won’t be paying to watch any of your fights on PPV from now. I’m not a racist cunt like you, so I will still buy things from businesses owned by people of different races.

But thanks to people like you, I don’t know for how long. Because if white people keep being demonised like this, I too will become a racist out of necessity/survival. And so will many others. Think on, you daft cunt.

Nominated by: Cuntybollocks

Gutstick Japseye also piled in to the lad…

I have no time for boxers these days, I find them hard to tell apart from rappers, such is the tacky existence of these overpaid bum fighters. Once pay per view came in, the sport turned into a slightly harder version of wrestling, fake as fuck posturing instead of a real contest. Joshua, who I have no idea if he can fight or not, has been attending the BLM rallies/riots, and has been telling the attended arseholes, and gleefully reported in the media, to shun white businesses in favour of black or BAME run business. Apparently this isn’t racist so it’s OK. I hope his posturing is remembered by his white fans next time he is on the pay per view, and they don’t.

The Guardian deserves a nomination, again. The Lancet recently published a study by the WHO into the 2 metre social distancing rule, and unlike the Mail, who put a positive spin on it, the Guardian opted to do a bit of scaremongering. Whereas the Mail headline is “One Metre Is Enough”, followed by “it cuts risk of catching virus by 80%”. Actually it’s 82%, but I’m not going to argue. The Guardian has gone with “Cutting back to 1 metre doubles infection risk”. Two different takes on the same study.

As things stand, the UK is one of only two European countries that are still enforcing the 2 metre rule. France has cut it to one metre, Germany has compromised and gone with 1.5 metres. At the moment, being 2 metres away from another person not from the same household means that your chances of not catching the kung flu are about 91%, whereas cutting it to 1 metre gives you an 82% chance of not catching it. Now, obviously, I’m no expert on these matters, but I would say that even at one meter, the chances of catching this virus are still very low. I like those odds. It would mean that pubs could reopen, and hairdressers and barbers. And here’s something else to consider, most of us have had to go into stores where, despite one way systems and social distancing, we’ve had to walk past people in the aisles at less than two metres. Have any of us caught Kung Flu by doing that? I haven’t.

So why the fuck are the Guardian trying to panic people into demanding that something that, by all accounts was an arbitrary figure anyway stay in place? Because they’re left wing cunts, that’s why.

Nominated by Quick Draw McGraw

QDM then came back for a second helping…

The Guardian needs another nomination. Don’t you just love it when karma hits lefties in the face with a sledgehammer? Guido is reporting on the hypocrisy of the Guardian celebrating the removal of statues of men who died two hundred years ago, because they were involved in even the most tenuous way to the slave (which was assisted by black Africans, who profited greatly from the sale into slavery of other black Africans they had captured in battle. Funny how that NEVER gets mentioned).

It turns out that back in the day, when it was known as the Manchester Guardian, the paper was a fervent supporter of the Confederacy during the American civil war. And they were vehemently opposed to Abraham Lincoln. On the 10th October 1862, the Guardian wrote of Lincoln’s election as President;

“it was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States”

On hearing the news of Lincoln’s assassination, they wrote that his time as President was “abhorrent”. I guess the modern day employees of that rag either don’t know the history of the Guardian, or they’ve employed the age old lefty trick of conveniently ignoring the fact that their distant predecessors were supporting a regime that actively participated in slavery, in the hope that nobody will find out. Well, someone has. Those lefties at 90 York Way had better hope that Antifa and BLM don’t find out. Be a real shame if their offices were besieged. No amount of knee bending will help them.