Tyke02

A few years ago ticketmaster made announcements about rotating barcodes that change every 30-60 seconds. Details here: https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/16/ticketmaster-put-an-end-to-screenshots-with-new-digital-ticket-technology/

So you've stepped back from "here's my proof" to "it's my opinion" once it was pointed out you were selectively quoting the part that aligned with your beliefs. That's a step forward. By the way, I also think that some of the population built up surplus money during the pandemic. I suspect that rather then people on furlough, it was the office folks able to work remotely on their usual £50 to £125k or more. Most of those would have been putting their money on the markets, rather than cash though, which neither of that analysts methods would pick up.

You didn't quote the last part of the article which goes on to contradict the first part by indicating other ways to assess the situation give radically different results: "An alternative method is to look at the amount of cash actually held in households’ bank accounts. This initially suggests a healthy stock of household savings – around £200bn higher than the pre-pandemic trend. But Webb found that once inflation was accounted for, households’ stock of savings fell below pre-pandemic patterns."

I think you will find that those figures are "Assets under management", i.e. the value of the shares that belong to their customer base. In the last quarter Blackrock had revenues of $4bn, with about a quarter of that being profit.

This news report describes findings of a publication from June 2020 that was created after analysing data from 2015/2016. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/bn27.2020.pdf It's an interesting read, with sound bites like "Almost one quarter of individuals with total remuneration above £100,000 paid the headline average rate for earnings. By contrast, one in ten people with total remuneration over £1 million paid a lower EATR than someone earning just £15,000. This proportion rises to one in four of those with total remuneration between £5 million and £10 million." They suggested that a more equitable arrangement would be to reduce the marginal tax rate for all those having remuneration greater than £100k from 45% to 35%, and applying that to all sources of remuneration (e.g. CGT). They estimate that this would spread the burden across more of those with ability to pay more, and still deliver an extra £11bn in taxes

The Labour MP named was paired with a Con on the programme who hotly contested her views using the same arguments as reiterated above. The BBC presenter hardly spoke. The programme team posted video links of both speakers to twitter. Blatant bias apparently.

I don't know how often that happens. If it does, having them on the payroll would make it harder to detect and prove. In any event "other people do the same as I did and they haven't been caught" is not much of a defence when you get to court.

What's been reported here is that the current indictment is not for using a prostitute and paying hush money, but for declaring the money used as a business expense.

Don't forget to tick the box consenting to photography.

Always going to be a story of more interest to US than UK media. Maybe CNN were content that what they said yesterday covered the issues. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/donald-trump-constitution-analysis/index.html

It was you that said : >>The programme said that 80-90% of deaths had been classified as covid being the underlying cause of death.<< Yes, and you denied it, without evidence. I was responding to your comment that "There is no way on earth that 80 to 90% of people died "of" Covid. None at all. That link takes you do a different episode that approaches the question of whether those who died sere about to die of their other ailments anyway. Did you even look at it? Am I the only one who ever questions your logic and understanding of evidence? I doubt that somehow.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

Maybe the Hunter Biden laptop expose will have a sting in the tail. This article suggests that the latest disclosures my have released information on first amendment violations by Trump: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-and-tucker-carlson-dont-understand-the-first-amendment/672352/

It's a distraction, you need to deal with the substance of his argument. What other factors might be involved in this outcome?

Yeah, Harford covered that one in June2020: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000kdr6 Yet none of them individually, or as a relay race, seem capable of carrying you to a conclusive argument. Yet you still keep witching between them in hope that one of them eventually will.

...and so we jump to the next horse in the never ending merry go round of cut and paste...

... supported with evidence. See the difference? Isn't evidence that covid was regarded as the underlying cause of death in 80-90% of people enough to support that. Don't bother to tell me again you don't believe in death certificates when the 17,000 number you have been banging on about comes from, guess where? I didn't hear it that way. I can see though that you would be looking for any way to avoid accepting the logic of the arguments presented which are strong enough to stand alone anyway. See, I said you couldn't see the problem with your approach and would reject anything that might help you to understand it.

OK, I see the albanian story too, so probably not an algorithm. Maybe the archive version was just a different time of the day. I suspect that they have a number of standard responses, and have enough complaints like yours to have one that seems to address the issue without mentioning content, so only a quick cut and paste needed to reply and get on with the rest of the mailbox. I doubt if they are given the staffing to be able to produce considered individual responses if it looks like a standard one will fit, particularly for serial complainers. Many people have already done this, you just reject the answers. For example:

...and this is a good example of your distortion. I didn't say it never happened, but I'm not going to blindly accept your account of it immediately after I've found that what you said about that Harford programme was wide of the mark. With evidence😁

It is indeed. They looked at the "only 17,000 covid deaths" thing that was being touted around social media at the time, and found out that the claim didn't stack up. If your england/scotland mask thing had been circulating equally widely they might have looked at that too, with I can assure you similar results. If you want to campaign about future policy, then you really need to put together more credible arguments, as the fact that you can't see the confounding factors in the england scotland comparison that mean it doesn't prove anything will have people disregarding the rest of your output.

Not quite what you said then, OK. I wonder if everyone sees the same stuff on that site, or whether there's an algorithm at work based on subjects you've looked at in the past. It doesn't appear in the wayback machine snapshot for the relevant date, so that might be an explanation. Your response from the BBC doesn't mention the specific story you pointed out at all. Yes because this is what was said before: You giving me information but no means to verify it is, from my perspective, hearsay. Reports from 15 months ago have little relevance to the present; you seem to be ignoring what's been reported more recently.

The programme said that 80-90% of deaths had been classified as covid being the underlying cause of death. As I said, if you don't trust the doctors you can compare those figures for the figures on excess deaths and find they are closely correlated. Solid data sources and logical analysis do not in themselves constitute an agenda. ...or it might have been based on data and logic, because that's where the evidence led him.

Apparently not in this case. It was about death statistics, not lockdown. It isn't bias to examine statistical evidence and arrive at logical conclusions. Perhaps, unlike you, he understood why the England/Scotland stuff proves nothing. Failing to platform something for which there is not good evidence is also not bias. I can't be bothered to track down another unreferenced claim, I've seen enough.

That's wierd, because on November 6, 2021 the wayback machine has it in the same place as it is now, the London regional page: https://web.archive.org/web/20211106004126/https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-london-59039726 Are you saying the BBC had it posted in two different places? It looks like a human interest story about long term issues that have interrupted someone's life following infection for over year. Given that there are more than a million people in that situation in this country this year a number of news outlets have reported on the issue, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/06/more-than-1m-people-report-long-covid-in-uk-a-year-after-infection or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/06/record-one-28-people-now-believe-have-long-covid/ One from each end of the political spectrum, and one from the middle. Where's the bias? hearsay noun information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

No breakdown there. You are saying he was implying that it was not that significant. I happened to hear that programme too and did not draw that conclusion; I think you are reading too much into it because you are desperately seeking anything that could be said to show bias. In fact I think I have that podcast on my phone so I might give it another listen. I found the Tim Harford programme is still online here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bk8lmz I've summarised the key points of the conversation below: The piece starts around three minutes in on the link above and is a conversation with Emma Monk (he also credits a named actuary and a named health economist with contributions). First they establish that the 17,000 number comes from death certificate data and it's the number of people who had only covid on their death certificate. 03:15 he mentions a relative (so it's not always an uncle) who got diabetes in 1992, and still runs 5ks (not marathons) in his late seventies. He asks Monk whether, if he died having got covid, the cause of death would be diabetes. Monk answers that that would make no sense, then illustrates examples where some the comorbidities could actually have been as a result of covid infection. - no long pause, leaving it hanging, with the implication you suggested, but a clear question and answer - 05:12 Harford asks about people with covid who actually died because of their comorbidities. Monk refers him to death certificate date through the pandemic up to then that shows 80-90% had covid as the underlying cause. - so no claim that it was all of them, but an evidence based comment about what proportion it was - Monk goes on to comment that if people have their doubts about death certificate data, this is also supported by counting excess deaths. - it seems I was right to question the accuracy of your remembered scraps of stuff off the radio-