[Mild Rover]

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Fri May 08, 2020 7:37 am  

48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote: Very few are able to understand the subtle difference in terminology used regarding deaths, the Office for National Statistics produces weekly figures for deaths by underlying cause, this is the only way they can 'code' a death, but they've added another section to include deaths where there is just a mention of a virus or even just a suspicion of a virus present and neither of those scenarios were underlying cause. At a whole population level, I’m not sure those subtleties matter too much - you can just look at the number of registered deaths. It is crude and there may be some confounding factors (although I can’t think of anything major), but when the change from recent norms is this striking, I think the message is pretty clear. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... hs-tracker 48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote: A step further, ONS have openly admitted to manipulating the numbers by including all pneumonia and influenza deaths and calling them all Covid19, something they've never done with any virus ever, still the number of actual deaths from respiratory diseases including C.19, flu, pneumonia etc in England and Wales, are fewer since first C.19 death was mentioned than for the 6 week period from week one (Jjanuary), and also less at the C.19 peak than for any of the last 5 years weeks 1-6 respiratory deaths by underlying cause. At a top line level that seems a little unlikely, even allowing for an April vs January comparison. Perhaps I’m misreading it. Are you sure it is based on a like-for-like comparison? For example, are the definitions being used or the lengths of the periods being compared the same? Whereabouts did you see this?

48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote: Very few are able to understand the subtle difference in terminology used regarding deaths, the Office for National Statistics produces weekly figures for deaths by underlying cause, this is the only way they can 'code' a death, but they've added another section to include deaths where there is just a mention of a virus or even just a suspicion of a virus present and neither of those scenarios were underlying cause. At a whole population level, I’m not sure those subtleties matter too much - you can just look at the number of registered deaths. It is crude and there may be some confounding factors (although I can’t think of anything major), but when the change from recent norms is this striking, I think the message is pretty clear. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... hs-tracker 48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote: A step further, ONS have openly admitted to manipulating the numbers by including all pneumonia and influenza deaths and calling them all Covid19, something they've never done with any virus ever, still the number of actual deaths from respiratory diseases including C.19, flu, pneumonia etc in England and Wales, are fewer since first C.19 death was mentioned than for the 6 week period from week one (Jjanuary), and also less at the C.19 peak than for any of the last 5 years weeks 1-6 respiratory deaths by underlying cause. At a top line level that seems a little unlikely, even allowing for an April vs January comparison. Perhaps I’m misreading it. Are you sure it is based on a like-for-like comparison? For example, are the definitions being used or the lengths of the periods being compared the same? Whereabouts did you see this?

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Fri May 08, 2020 7:33 pm  

Let’s hope they find a cure for Coronavirus.
That’s all people die of now . Forget Cancer , strokes, heart attacks , suicide , accidents, and natural causes! Cure this, we will be immortal!

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 7:09 pm  

IR80 wrote:

indeed (agree with both posts)

Had they used the phrase 'herd mentality' as opposed to 'herd immunity' people would have balked at the principle of it. (Similar to the civil liberties groups about the app). What they have done is, quite cleverly, modified behaviour without appearing to directly do so.

Very little about tne situation has changed, the hand washing and general distancing and vastly improved hygiene has now become accepted and, more importantly, execpted. We will slowly see urinals etc. largely removed, pick n mix, buffets etc. will not make a return, and certainly not in the form we were used to.

The things that wont change, that I think should, are the spitting in the street and on football / sports pitches, selling of fruit and veg from stalls next to busy roads, sharing of drinks bottles etc.

But, back on topic, we are a long way from the season re-starting, we are basically going to follow what the PL does, they have much bigger resourcesand influence, when they agree a model with government it will be much easier to amend it for an RL purpose than invent our own.

(catchy username by the way.....

Do you understand what it represents?

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 8:21 pm  

48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote:

Do you understand what it represents?

nope

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 8:23 pm  

48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote:

Do you understand what it represents?

Is Hull RLFC near enough?

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 8:37 pm  

ccs wrote:

Is Hull RLFC near enough?

4 is g,h or i (so H works)
8 is t,u or v (so U works)
7 is p,q,r or s. So it falls down here...?

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 8:55 pm  

Mild Rover wrote: At a whole population level, I’m not sure those subtleties matter too much - you can just look at the number of registered deaths. It is crude and there may be some confounding factors (although I can’t think of anything major), but when the change from recent norms is this striking, I think the message is pretty clear. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... hs-tracker At a top line level that seems a little unlikely, even allowing for an April vs January comparison. Perhaps I’m misreading it. Are you sure it is based on a like-for-like comparison? For example, are the definitions being used or the lengths of the periods being compared the same? Whereabouts did you see this? All the data is on the ONS website and the years register of deaths, though this is for Eng & Wales it's representative for UK and indeed how 'deaths' are being counted and represented. You see the same experts making the same mistake time and time again (it happens in all fields), producing more confirmation bias and all from the original errors at the outset. Most of it through fear of standing out from the rest and thus herd mentality is as prevalent in 'experts' wanting to save their behinds as it is in the general populous. Openly admitting the errors now simply will not happen due to the damage done, it wouldn't just be a career ender but far far worse. They are too far down the road to turn back and admit to the errors. The bare facts prove that the death toll from respiratory disease as underlying cause of death is fewer than for the first 6 weeks of the year and lower than any first 6 week period for the last 5 years. It proves that government are not just counting ALL pneumonia and influenza deaths in the C.19 new column (or rather row as it's shown on the register of deaths) but the number they are giving is a massive misrepresentation, their number are total deaths WITH a virus mentioned on a death certificate or a suspicion of a virus present in the deceased. The governments own adviser Prof Neil Ferguson admitted in March that the vast majority of deaths would be from people with such serious underlying conditions that sadly they would die no matter what. The government number is a number that includes every positive test, or in a significant number, no positive test at all, even if the presence of C.19 or influenza, or pneumonia has very little or no effect on outcome. In terms of coding a death it can only be done by underlying cause, you can't double count simply because something else was present even if it did have a contribution in some small way, or even not. Counting deaths in the way the government are doing has never been done before, not even when we had massive influenza pandemic's far worse than we see currently with C.19(2017/18, 2014/15, 2009, 1999 etc), this is why the actual respiratory deaths by underlying cause for the weeks that C.19 has been around are fewer than weeks where it wasn't. This is why the actual number of deaths directly caused by (underlying cause) Covid19 is massively fewer than people are being told it is, deaths FROM and deaths WITH/INVOLVING are two totally different things with regards the register of deaths. That the government have instructed ONS to show basically all respiratory deaths and make them out to be all from C.19 is a distortion of the truth. That's before you even get to the huge differential in testing numbers compared to say influenza in any given year, before you get to flawed way the numbers re mortality rate have been worked, testing lots of already sick people and a large % die when we know that flu type viruses spread so ridiculously easily should have given cause to question the WHO mortality rate from the start. Last year in E&W there were just over 71,000 respiratory deaths, ALL as underlying cause of death*, not simply because that RD is mentioned on a death certificate or there's a 'suspicion' as is being applied to C.19 currently. *just type in ONS deaths in your search engine and there should be a link that will take you to the 'deaths' section, you can download the XLS sheets for any year you want. Since the first recorded death WITH C.19 (week 11 of the death register), there have been 10,035 deaths in the respiratory disease category in England and Wales recorded in the register to week 16 inclusive (w/e 17th April). That's all respiratory diseases in total including all different types of flu, all pneumonia, all coronaviruses (seven including current type) and anything else that gets thrown into that section. This total including C.19 is fewer RDs than the first 6 weeks, that being Wk1-6 2020 inclusive, for England and Wales which recorded 12,108 respiratory deaths by underlying cause. 2019 the supposed 'best' flu death totals for years, week 1-6 there were 10,741 respiratory deaths in E&W, all by underlying cause. 2018 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 15,613 respiratory deaths 2017 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 14,249 respiratory deaths 2016 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 10,944 respiratory deaths 2015 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 16,317 respiratory deaths all deaths by underlying cause weeks 1-6 are generally the peak winter respiratory deaths. If you continue to test more of the deceased for a virus that spreads like wildfire you find more of the deceased with that virus or had had it, if they had done the same level of testing for influenza in bad flu years and applied the same way to represent the death it'd likely show hundreds of thousands of 'deaths' in the UK by influenza because most people will have or have had flu, more so in 'winter' months. But this was never done because that's not how deaths are coded, so why have the government changed the way they are counting and representing deaths when the register massively contradicts what they are saying, contradicts what the media are saying regarding deaths by underlying cause?

Mild Rover wrote: At a whole population level, I’m not sure those subtleties matter too much - you can just look at the number of registered deaths. It is crude and there may be some confounding factors (although I can’t think of anything major), but when the change from recent norms is this striking, I think the message is pretty clear. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... hs-tracker At a top line level that seems a little unlikely, even allowing for an April vs January comparison. Perhaps I’m misreading it. Are you sure it is based on a like-for-like comparison? For example, are the definitions being used or the lengths of the periods being compared the same? Whereabouts did you see this? All the data is on the ONS website and the years register of deaths, though this is for Eng & Wales it's representative for UK and indeed how 'deaths' are being counted and represented. You see the same experts making the same mistake time and time again (it happens in all fields), producing more confirmation bias and all from the original errors at the outset. Most of it through fear of standing out from the rest and thus herd mentality is as prevalent in 'experts' wanting to save their behinds as it is in the general populous. Openly admitting the errors now simply will not happen due to the damage done, it wouldn't just be a career ender but far far worse. They are too far down the road to turn back and admit to the errors. The bare facts prove that the death toll from respiratory disease as underlying cause of death is fewer than for the first 6 weeks of the year and lower than any first 6 week period for the last 5 years. It proves that government are not just counting ALL pneumonia and influenza deaths in the C.19 new column (or rather row as it's shown on the register of deaths) but the number they are giving is a massive misrepresentation, their number are total deaths WITH a virus mentioned on a death certificate or a suspicion of a virus present in the deceased. The governments own adviser Prof Neil Ferguson admitted in March that the vast majority of deaths would be from people with such serious underlying conditions that sadly they would die no matter what. The government number is a number that includes every positive test, or in a significant number, no positive test at all, even if the presence of C.19 or influenza, or pneumonia has very little or no effect on outcome. In terms of coding a death it can only be done by underlying cause, you can't double count simply because something else was present even if it did have a contribution in some small way, or even not. Counting deaths in the way the government are doing has never been done before, not even when we had massive influenza pandemic's far worse than we see currently with C.19(2017/18, 2014/15, 2009, 1999 etc), this is why the actual respiratory deaths by underlying cause for the weeks that C.19 has been around are fewer than weeks where it wasn't. This is why the actual number of deaths directly caused by (underlying cause) Covid19 is massively fewer than people are being told it is, deaths FROM and deaths WITH/INVOLVING are two totally different things with regards the register of deaths. That the government have instructed ONS to show basically all respiratory deaths and make them out to be all from C.19 is a distortion of the truth. That's before you even get to the huge differential in testing numbers compared to say influenza in any given year, before you get to flawed way the numbers re mortality rate have been worked, testing lots of already sick people and a large % die when we know that flu type viruses spread so ridiculously easily should have given cause to question the WHO mortality rate from the start. Last year in E&W there were just over 71,000 respiratory deaths, ALL as underlying cause of death*, not simply because that RD is mentioned on a death certificate or there's a 'suspicion' as is being applied to C.19 currently. *just type in ONS deaths in your search engine and there should be a link that will take you to the 'deaths' section, you can download the XLS sheets for any year you want. Since the first recorded death WITH C.19 (week 11 of the death register), there have been 10,035 deaths in the respiratory disease category in England and Wales recorded in the register to week 16 inclusive (w/e 17th April). That's all respiratory diseases in total including all different types of flu, all pneumonia, all coronaviruses (seven including current type) and anything else that gets thrown into that section. This total including C.19 is fewer RDs than the first 6 weeks, that being Wk1-6 2020 inclusive, for England and Wales which recorded 12,108 respiratory deaths by underlying cause. 2019 the supposed 'best' flu death totals for years, week 1-6 there were 10,741 respiratory deaths in E&W, all by underlying cause. 2018 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 15,613 respiratory deaths 2017 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 14,249 respiratory deaths 2016 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 10,944 respiratory deaths 2015 weeks 1-6 for E&W, 16,317 respiratory deaths all deaths by underlying cause weeks 1-6 are generally the peak winter respiratory deaths. If you continue to test more of the deceased for a virus that spreads like wildfire you find more of the deceased with that virus or had had it, if they had done the same level of testing for influenza in bad flu years and applied the same way to represent the death it'd likely show hundreds of thousands of 'deaths' in the UK by influenza because most people will have or have had flu, more so in 'winter' months. But this was never done because that's not how deaths are coded, so why have the government changed the way they are counting and representing deaths when the register massively contradicts what they are saying, contradicts what the media are saying regarding deaths by underlying cause?

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 8:56 pm  

ccs wrote:

Is Hull RLFC near enough?

Bingo

IR80 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Is Hull RLFC near enough?

4 is g,h or i (so H works)
8 is t,u or v (so U works)
7 is p,q,r or s. So it falls down here...?

It's Hexidecimal

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 9:17 pm  

I haven't read all the thread, what's the current situation regarding terms for players going forward into new contract offers. Will there be more caution regards the 'talent' and what players are worth, particularly the higher earners?
The massive loss of income will take a while to claw back, salaries are one of the biggest outlays, if the 'industry' as a whole changes the level of remuneration would that make it easier for clubs or would it do more damage? Could individual players at the higher salary end accept that these are exceptional times mean and that a lower income is better than no income at all?
Sorry if it's been discussed previously

[Mild Rover]

Re: Contract Talks & FCs Future : Sat May 09, 2020 9:44 pm  

48756c6c20 524c4643 wrote:

All the data is on the ONS website...

Long story short:

1. Do you agree/accept that mortality as a whole in England and Wales was much higher in April this year than in April of recent previous years? Hitting a one-week peak (hopefully) at about double the average rate?
2. Assuming ‘yes’, do you agree that by far the largest reason for this change to the norm is the the current coronavirus pandemic?