Categories Society
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
[thread]
On the UK "will not hesitate" to tighten border
For the record
Months the UK "hesitated"
January 2020
February 2020
March 2020
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
July 2020
August 2020
September 2020
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021
February 2021
Priti Patel
Is eager to divulge internal debate held in cabinet to bolster her reputation & get a boost for Tory leadership post Boris
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last
So this is going to be a really simple thread
I have a larger thread on Priti Patel
Which we will come to at the last
But I want to focus on
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last March.”
So I would ask of Priti
What evidence did you have that informed your advocacy?
Did you have (to borrow a phrase) an "absolute burden of proof"?
Was it just a hunch or belief?
Were you trying to "do-good" so to
On the UK "will not hesitate" to tighten border
For the record
Months the UK "hesitated"
January 2020
February 2020
March 2020
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
July 2020
August 2020
September 2020
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021
February 2021
Priti Patel
Is eager to divulge internal debate held in cabinet to bolster her reputation & get a boost for Tory leadership post Boris
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last
So this is going to be a really simple thread
I have a larger thread on Priti Patel
Which we will come to at the last
But I want to focus on
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last March.”
So I would ask of Priti
What evidence did you have that informed your advocacy?
Did you have (to borrow a phrase) an "absolute burden of proof"?
Was it just a hunch or belief?
Were you trying to "do-good" so to
Ian Hislop explains to Priti Patel why she's wrong about supporting capital punishment, but she disagrees claiming "absolute burden of proof" means innocent people will never be wrongly executed.#c4news @LBC #r4today #bbcqt #PoliticsLive #Newsnight #bbcaq #marr #GE2019 pic.twitter.com/dsQ98AzHQH
— I Am Incorrigible FCA (@ImIncorrigible) September 15, 2019
I urge all followers who have read my criticisms of PCR mass testing in U.K. to carefully read Mr Fordham’s carefully worded letter. Note that the innovation minister in the Lords, Lord Bethel, already admitted that the PCR system doesn’t have the equivalent of an MOT. https://t.co/zXzeDMKCBb
Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.
As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...
...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...
...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...
So I wrote back to @lucyfrazermp for another go. Here\u2019s my letter.
— Edmund Fordham (@EdmundFordham) November 28, 2020
They don\u2019t understand how serious this is.
If they can\u2019t tell us the oFPR, our PCR testing is worthless. (thread) pic.twitter.com/zHJ8SJCzf1
Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.
As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...
...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...
...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...