S
sodthisforfun
Very... generous of you!
- Status
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Vinty's link clearly linked to Amy Clarke's profile page at Leicester Uni.
If Vinty wanted to link to the article that you have now presented, perhaps he should take more care of presenting his evidence than he does presenting his preconceived suppositions.
As far as my 'absurd accusations' are concerned, please point out which accusations to which you are referring.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
It is your link, you found the article, and posted the link, Vinty did not post the link to this article.
Now to come to the linked article in the newspaper:
The article refers to a DoH report and that report suggests that coronavirus is prevalent within the BAME community:
The most recent Department for Health report on the prevalence of coronavirus among BAME communities recognises some of this complexity.
Ceres link https://theconversation.com/leicest...ity-communities-needs-to-be-challenged-142418
Agreed. BAME people are more likely to be key workers and more exposed to the virus, due to their occupations and the need for them to continue working.Ceres link https://theconversation.com/leicest...ity-communities-needs-to-be-challenged-142418
Note that the report does not suggest that coronavirus is any more prevalent within the BAME community, than any other type of community.
Now Amy Clarke refers to that same DoH report, and provides a link to it:
However, the report notes that large family households and multigenerational living increases the risk of the virus spreading.
Well, no it does not note any such thing.The real DoH reports specifically states:
The results of the PHE data review suggest that people of Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups may be more exposed to COVID-19, and therefore are more likely to be diagnosed. This could be the result of factors associated with ethnicity such as occupation, population density, use of public transport, household composition and housing conditions, which the currently available data did not allow us to explore in this analysis.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...lder_engagement_synthesis_beyond_the_data.pdf
Bottom of page 6 Increased risk of exposure to and acquisition of COVID-19
Clearly, the first sentence in the paragraph entitled, Increased risk of exposure to and acquisition of COVID-19, bottom of page 6, is accurate. No-one disputes that. But then I'm afraid that Amy Clarke has made a reference to a supposed fact in a DoH report that simply does not exist. The last sentence in that paragraph clearly indicates that the available data (to the DoH report) did not allow them to explore such factors.https://assets.publishing.service.g...lder_engagement_synthesis_beyond_the_data.pdf
Bottom of page 6 Increased risk of exposure to and acquisition of COVID-19
For all Amy Clarke's good intentions, she has sadly reinforced the myth that multi-generational families facilitate the spread of coronavirus, and used non-existent data to posit her conclusion.
D
durhamplumber
You do see the best in everyone Notchy..V admirable quality.
Sponsored Links
With own capacity for self deception you don't need me to deceive you.
D
Deleted2797112
D you have to be such a complete tosspot all the time?
https://www.npi.org.uk/files/2115/8...e_variation_in_Covid_cases_across_England.pdf
Thanks for posting that link, i tried earlier and couldn't find it.
Now do you accept my point was legitimate.
Multigenerational families by their very nature are most likely do contribute to the spread of CV19.
When i was young our grandpaw lived with us, so i suppose nowadays we would be classed as a multigenerational family.
So i wasn't criticising multigenerationals for being what they are but facts are facts.
Half of the posts in a thread titled "For Himmy" are from one poster.......
All others : 34 posts
One poster : 17 posts
One poster : 17 posts
Until I posted , of course
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Not at all. If you read that post of mine that you quoted, you will understand how and why I disagree with Amy Clarke's opinion
The Department of Health report that she refers to, absolutely does not note that multi-generational families increase the spread of coronavirus in the community. In direct contrast to Amy Clarke's comment, the report specifically states that their data does not allow them to explore that issue.
If you check through that post of mine, that you quoted, you will see exactly the comment in the DoH report that is in direct contrast to Amy's conclusion.
I have contacted Amy Clarke to discuss this with her, but as yet, I have had no response. Considering it is mid-holiday period, that is not surprising.
I'm sure that you will agree that one person's anecdotal history is insufficient on which to base an assumption about a whole group in society, and certainly not a basis on which to create a prejudicial conjecture.
Additionally, I'm pretty confident that you were not aware of Amy Clarke's article before you formed your prejudicial preconceived conjecture.
And that has been the only source of supposedly genuine research to support your assumption. But as I have explained, I think Amy Clarke's opinion is flawed.
I'll report back, as, when and if I hear back from Amy Clarke.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Well as the majority of posters consider me to be a previous poster, therefore, it is safe to assume the discussion is aimed at me.Half of the posts in a thread titled "For Himmy" are from one poster.......
As the majority of posts have been addressed to me and my comments, you find it surprising that I respond to many of those comments?
Really, brigadier, if I started a discussion, entitled, "For Brigadier", you would totally ignore the comments? I think not!
Therefore, your comment is typical of your ad hominem type comments, counter-intuitive, nonsensical, and, as usual, adds absolutely noting to the issue under discussion.
In addition, if you have nothing better to do than occupy your time with counting posts in a discussion to make a ludicrous and irrelevant comment, I suggest you look for a more rewarding pastime.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Why do you keep posting that link?
It is irrelevant to the issue under discussion. It suggests that relatives, of all ages, are likely to contract the virus in the home, from other infected relatives. Wow, that's surprising!
I think not!
The report in your link does not address the possibility, nor the probability of older relatives increasing the spread of coronavirus within the community.
It only deals with people contracting the virus within the home. It doesn't take a special report to arrive at that conclusion.
Additionally, you are merely being abusive and not presenting any argument at all, just the same abuse, and the same irrelevant link time and time again.
Your comments are unhelpful, unexplained and downright rude.
Finally, you found the link to the article by Amy Clarke.
Vinty did not, he found a link to Amy Clarke's profile page at Leicester Uni.
Indeed, Vinty states that he could not find it:
"Thanks for posting that link, i tried earlier and couldn't find it."
Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/for-himmy.550553/page-4#ixzz6UnRQCTZqTo deny that you found it is plainly nonsense.
D
Deleted2797112
"The proportion of over-70s in a local authority area who share a household with people of working-age is confirmed to be a significant factor in accounting for the variation in the number of Covid-19 cases across England – even when levels of local deprivation, the time since the area first recorded five cases and an additional, non-specific, “London effect” are taken into account."
- Status
Sponsored Links
