The end is nigh?

[RlCO 0]

This news story exists because of the conference happening today. Are they all in on it then? Or do they just not watch the news?

 

Can you actually read? (I guess not given the whole 3% thing)

 

 

See above, there's about 4 published studies being presented on the effects it (the ban) has had, none of which are particularly unexpected, dramatic or headline grabbing (this is actually the meat of the story and most of the conference I guess).

 

 

Then there is the "17%/20%" thing which is not published (at all) and seems to be just a PR headline grabber of a completely spurious and massaged statistical comparison of things that cannot really be compared (i.e. as said a load of bollocks).

 

 

Exactly what part of that is beyond your capability to grasp?

 

Well, I'm finding it hard to believe the 17% figure doesn't appear anywhere in the conference, considering the news story was prompted by the conference. But whatever, you're right, I don't particularly want keep being insulted by someone like yourself, so believe what you want, no skin off my nose.

[Fop 1]

Well, I'm finding it hard to believe the 17% figure doesn't appear anywhere in the conference, considering the news story was prompted by the conference.

 

Maybe it appears on a slide somewhere, maybe it was just a verbal publicity "hook", either way it's likely complete rubbish in the context (as explained).

 

 

But whatever, you're right, I don't particularly want keep being insulted by someone like yourself, so believe what you want, no skin off my nose.

 

Don't keep spouting utter rubbish and then refuse (or just be unable) to back it up, if you don't want to end up looking like a fool.

 

Simple as that.

[RlCO 0]

Well, I'm finding it hard to believe the 17% figure doesn't appear anywhere in the conference, considering the news story was prompted by the conference.

 

Maybe it appears on a slide somewhere, maybe it was just a verbal publicity "hook", either way it's likely complete rubbish in the context (as explained).

 

 

But whatever, you're right, I don't particularly want keep being insulted by someone like yourself, so believe what you want, no skin off my nose.

 

Don't keep spouting utter rubbish and then refuse (or just be unable) to back it up, if you don't want to end up looking like a fool.

 

Simple as that.

 

What can't I back up? It was reported as a 3% maximum drop on the news, you are assuming it is an average from a quote that says no such thing. You are the one who can't explain how -17% is a normal variation around this (presumably balanced out by 15% increases in other years), or how it otherwise arises from a different reporting system that by chance no-one has picked up even though it's pretty crucial to the point being made.

[Tom 13819]

Read Animal Farm Rico...

[Fop 1]

What can't I back up? It was reported as a 3% maximum drop on the news,

 

It was reported as a 3% maximum drop on "the news", a TV news bulletin?

 

As I said the only mention I can find anywhere is on the scotland.gov sit as:

a 17 per cent reduction in heart attack admissions to nine Scottish hospitals. This compares with an annual reduction in Scottish admissions for heart attack of 3 per cent per year in the decade before the ban

 

Which absolutely suggests an averaged trend across a decade and mentions nothing at all about a "3% maximum drop".

 

 

 

you are assuming it is an average from a quote that says no such thing.

 

It's either talking about an average or Scotland has had (by their data) an exact 3% drop each and every year for the last 10 years (which would be pretty amazing in and of itself).

 

 

 

You are the one who can't explain how -17% is a normal variation around this (presumably balanced out by 15% increases in other years), or how it otherwise arises from a different reporting system that by chance no-one has picked up even though it's pretty crucial to the point being made.

 

Again without seeing the data it's impossible to tell for certain, it doesn't even say if these figures are even statistically significant or have been looked at as such.

 

But again a 17% drop is a huge change from your supposed "3% maximum drop", but this hasn't been picked up else where in the world (assuming they did account for every other variable in their date which I absolutely doubt).

 

And if it's a PR "stat" it's quite possible the people in question fully know it's complete BS, but with political point scoring it's all about getting the headlines and worrying about anyone find out the details later.

 

How else do Labour get away with re-announcing the SAME FUNDING sometimes on 3-4 separate occasions (and implying it is new funding each and every time) over several months or even years?

[RlCO 0]

I must have missed the scientific conference that deals with the funding announcements of new labour made on the very same day as the conference.

[Fop 1]

I must have missed the scientific conference that deals with the funding announcements of new labour made on the very same day as the conference.

 

Yes and I must have missed the bit where you actually backed up anything you said, or indeed understood most anything written in this thread.

 

 

Politics clearly you.

[Fop 1]

Read Animal Farm Rico...

 

I think it might be a bit to subtle tbh.

 

 

 

 

Talking pigs or politicians not being entirely truthful....... which is the harder to swallow?

[RlCO 0]

I must have missed the scientific conference that deals with the funding announcements of new labour made on the very same day as the conference.

 

Yes and I must have missed the bit where you actually backed up anything you said, or indeed understood most anything written in this thread.

 

 

Politics clearly you.

 

A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

[Fop 1]

A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

 

 

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness.

 

You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such.

 

As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it.

[RlCO 0]

A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

 

 

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness.

 

You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such.

 

As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it.

 

All I've done is post a news story, which you subsequently can't defend your critique of, preferring to talk about New Labour funding and generally being a cock. I doubt you can answer the points, otherwise given your unique personality you would have. So here you are, using words such a pantishness

 

"You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such." - you could be talking about yourself really

[Fop 1]

A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

 

 

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness.

 

You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such.

 

As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it.

 

All I've done is post a news story, which you subsequently can't defend your critique of,

 

Apart from repeatedly and absolutely again and again and again, above. Apart from that, aye.

 

 

preferring to talk about New Labour funding and generally being a cock.

 

Pointing out myriad examples of political shenanigans, which clearly you.

 

 

I doubt you can answer the points, otherwise given your unique personality you would have.

 

Are you being a "cock" now?

 

So here you are, using words such a pantishness

 

It fits your drivel VERY well.

 

"You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such." - you could be talking about yourself really

 

And now you've basically resorted to "I know you are so what am I?"

 

Nice, now grow up and take being made to look a complete fool like... well something other than a very sore loser.

[Park Life 70]

Early deaths throughout the populus for whatever reason will go some way to saving the planet.

[Fop 1]

Early deaths throughout the populus for whatever reason will go some way to saving the planet.

 

 

Aye that fits in with the draconian action bit (before all the smoking stuff) really.

 

Might be a market for "eco-cigarettes" maybe.

[Park Life 70]

Early deaths throughout the populus for whatever reason will go some way to saving the planet.

 

 

Aye that fits in with the draconian action bit (before all the smoking stuff) really.

 

Might be a market for "eco-cigarettes" maybe.

 

Yes I do beleive that snuff is making a comeback in certain gentlemans watering holes.

[RlCO 0]

A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

 

 

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness.

 

You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such.

 

As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it.

 

All I've done is post a news story, which you subsequently can't defend your critique of,

 

Apart from repeatedly and absolutely again and again and again, above. Apart from that, aye.

 

 

preferring to talk about New Labour funding and generally being a cock.

 

Pointing out myriad examples of political shenanigans, which clearly you.

 

 

I doubt you can answer the points, otherwise given your unique personality you would have.

 

Are you being a "cock" now?

 

So here you are, using words such a pantishness

 

It fits your drivel VERY well.

 

"You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such." - you could be talking about yourself really

 

And now you've basically resorted to "I know you are so what am I?"

 

Nice, now grow up and take being made to look a complete fool like... well something other than a very sore loser.

 

Where have you explained a 17% variation as normal? or explained changed reporting that bypassed everyone at the conference? I really can't be bothered to address the rest of your crap, you could clearly go on like that for hours ignoring reality

[Fop 1]

Where have you explained a 17% variation as normal?

 

Repeatedly above; not only could at least 10% either way be within the variation of a 10 year averaged 3% decline year on year, but frankly so could a 17% one and whether any of that is statistically significant, who knows.

 

 

More importantly why has NO ONE explained way similar trends have NOT been seen in Ireland, California or any of the other places with public smoking bans long before Scotland? (again you'll ignore this for what must be the 10th time no doubt )

 

or explained changed reporting that bypassed everyone at the conference?

 

Why would people necessarily know about increased levels of statin prescription (to give just one example of other factors)?

 

There's a very large likelihood the data was just collected and processed without any real checks - something upheld by the fact it's not published unlike the rest of the stuff presented at the conference IMO and that it seems to have been collected and collated within the Scottish NHS.

 

 

I really can't be bothered to address the rest of your crap, you could clearly go on like that for hours ignoring reality

 

Your "reality" where politicians don't lie, EVER.

And no one has ever massaged shoddy statistics to show something that isn't really there.

 

 

Aye I'm sure you'd like if I ignored that "reality", but unfortunately for you and your drivel I'll happily point out the gapping flaws in your "reality" till the cows come home.

[RlCO 0]

So presumably, the normal trend is -17, 15, -5, 12, -14, 5 ... ?

 

You're saying it's rubbish because it hasn't happened in Ireland or California? That's your argument? Has Ireland even done a study? Are Californians as unfit and prone to heart attacks as Jocks? Did they have similar rates of smoking? Patently obvious this isn't any kind of argument

 

Why are you on about statins when I asked you about your claim of hiding different reporting methods? Do you even remember what you claimed? i.e. they do/don't count heart attacks differently now, coincidentally at the same time as the ban was introduced and unnoticed by any of the attendees of the conference.

 

Fair enough if you think politicians are lying to you and you think that realisation is unique to your wierd little mind, you're still ignoring the basic fact this news report was produced because of a scientific conference, in the full glare of all those attending, and isn't anything like your crap about new labour funding statements or waiting list figures, which ultimately have no relevance at all at the end of the day, unless you really do think in such simplistic terms

[Fop 1]

So presumably, the normal trend is -17, 15, -5, 12, -14, 5 ... ?

 

Presumable it gives an average of 3% decline year on year for the past 10 years, other than that it is hard to say without actually seen the data.

 

 

You're saying it's rubbish because it hasn't happened in Ireland or California?

 

I'm saying physiological factors directly tied into a smoking ban directly resulting in a 17% drop in heart attack admission WOULD show up in other places yes, because in that context it is a HUGE drop.

 

Now how do YOU explain this doesn't show up anywhere else?

 

That's your argument? Has Ireland even done a study? Are Californians as unfit and prone to heart attacks as Jocks? Did they have similar rates of smoking? Patently obvious this isn't any kind of argument

 

Again physiological issues that reduced the heart attack occurrence rate by 17% over all and 20% in non-smokers would show up in other data sets, something that huge might even be noticeable without the need to even look at the data.

 

So again how do you explain why it only "occurs" in Scotland, what part of the ban makes such a huge difference there and ONLY there?

 

Why are you on about statins when I asked you about your claim of hiding different reporting methods?

Because as was rightly pointed out, mass prescription of statins around this time could have a large effect on heart attack admission rates, yet that reduction would have little if anything to do with the smoking ban other than coincidental timing.

 

Reporting of conditions changing is just another factor as well (there are 10's if not 100's of factors possibly involved).

 

 

Do you even remember what you claimed? i.e. they do/don't count heart attacks differently now, coincidentally at the same time as the ban was introduced and unnoticed by any of the attendees of the conference.

 

I said that was one possibility (fortunately one of us does remember ) and it still is (as indeed is that the smoking ban has had some miraculous unforeseen physiological effect - it's just that is IMO highly unlikely).

 

 

Fair enough if you think politicians are lying to you and you think that realisation is unique to your wierd little mind,

 

I know politicians lie, anyone that doesn't know that politicians lie when they think it will help them and they think they will get away with it, doesn't know much I'm afraid (and maybe does have a "weird little mind" and who knows what else).

 

 

 

you're still ignoring the basic fact this news report was produced because of a scientific conference, in the full glare of all those attending, and isn't anything like your crap about new labour funding statements or waiting list figures, which ultimately have no relevance at all at the end of the day, unless you really do think in such simplistic terms

 

And again all the published studies presented in this conference are quite, quite different to this 17% reduction number, which as I said seems to be a publicity hook and little else.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Fop

[Park Life 70]

Christ what a thread hijack that was.