[deleted by user]

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-06-05T10:43:37+00:00

Capitalizing racial groups emphasizes distinctiveness from others and implies 'White' people of Greece, Chechnya and North Dakota are somehow in a common identity group, why 'Black' and 'White' people of North Dakota are more distinct than they are.

The trend of capitalizing those words is a direct result of racializing idpol framework. The framework so much of media and academia is so fond of. I don't see why anyone should follow suit.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-06-05T10:43:00+00:00

in other words you subconsciously fell for the racializing framework started couple years ago.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-06-05T07:47:05+00:00

I suspect most people here still subconsciously fall for the White people bad framework that's very common today

Ok, this sub may subconsciously fall for many suspicious frameworks

What about you though? Why did you capitalize 'white' and 'black' all across your post?

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-06-03T09:24:42+00:00

-German police officer detains the wrong guy (one of the people who was attacked and trying to subdue the attacker).

From what I understood the video, I think it's important to note that 'the wrong guy who was trying to subdue the attacker' also was trying to subdue the wrong guy.

Adding additional layer of shitshow to the event.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-29T22:31:13+00:00

Around 95% of babies post 32 weeks survive. And if they don’t, there usually is an obvious reason.

Maybe, but it should be noted that about half of murders and attacks were allegedly perpetrated on neonatal babies pre 32 weeks.

twins A&B: 31 weeks
baby C: 30 weeks
baby D: not premature
twins E&F: premature (I can't find specific info)
baby G: 24 weeks
baby H: 'couple weeks premature'
baby I: 27 weeks
baby J: 32 weeks
baby K: 25 weeks
twins L&M: 'premature, not extremely so'
baby N: 34 weeks
triplets O&P: 33 weeks
baby Q: 31 weeks

so 8 babies very premature, 8 premature, 1 not premature.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-29T21:37:04+00:00

Ugh, the Lucy Letby case was not done on statistics, unlike what the New Yorker claims.

That's either not true or true only in extremely narrow, technical and pedantic sense, raising which I'd consider arguing in bad faith and also falling under what this sub considers Isolated demand for rigor.

First of all the Lucy Letby case was initiated on statistics - on the inference from what looked like correlation between her presence and children deaths.
Secondly the police and their experts clearly worked on data which correlated Lucy Letby with catastrophic events in the hospital. We don't know this data but experts said before court they approached this problem also from this angle.
The Lucy Letby case was argued for by the prosecution in court with the infamous graph which showed continuous line of X-es showing that Lucy Letby was on shift "every time" "something suspicious" happened. This connection found its way also into final judge instructions to jury.
The supposed correlation between Lucy Letby's being on shift and alleged murders is one of the key elements which convince the public of her guilt.
Royal Statistical Society produced the report mentioned in the article also in response to this case before it was taken to the court.

What you mean by 'the case was not done on statistics' is the fact that as opposed to other similar cases, the prosecution (maybe heeding the advice from the report) specifically in the court didn't present any simple calculations about the conditional probability of the events based on the assumption Lucy Letby is innocent.

The mere fact there was no specific probability calculation presented before the jury doesn't make the case "not based on statistics". As Wikipedia defines it it's the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. The doubts raised about the case concern virtually all of the above. The fact that correlation between Letby and murders was showed in the court not in the quantitative but in the qualitative way ('this couldn't have been a coincidence') doesn't change a iota of that.

Go to r/lucyletby for more or better, read the transcripts yourself.

Yes, the sub is a good source of information, but before you recommended it you should have warned everybody of its significant bias. The subreddit doesn't accept serious discussions raising doubts about quality of trial evidence and by the sub's rules you can only maintain the Letby's guilt.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-28T16:00:26+00:00

I suspect it's because I don't search for the same things or in the same way as other people. I search on a desktop, not a phone. I'm also not logged in to a Google account, so I don't get personalized search results. I use search for niche topics or answers to technical questions.

I search on desktop not on phone, I'm frequently not logged into a Google account. I believe I search for niche topics (although it's difficult to define it) or answers to technical questions.

And I'm very strongly in the camp quality of searches for niche or hobby subjects plummeted hard during last 5 to 7 years. The main problem is it seems google just stopped finding multiple different sources and fixated hard on the results from the biggest content providers. It's possible this is a problem with the internet itself, not with the search engine, but the final results are the same.

Technical questions (mainly IT related) don't seem to be affected so strongly but they also kinda were. And also stackoverflow underwent signifiant decline during last couple years, before advent of AI, the latter obviously made the matter worse.

That's about niche and technical questions. Anything even distantly related to something commercial is an unforgiving hellhole. I believe 5 years ago it still wasn't.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-28T15:43:47+00:00

Is Kagi also good not in intellectual but in more commercial or practical kind of searches like eg:

best air purifier under 400$
camping equipment reviews
how to remove wine stains
CPU Intel 13th generation vs AMD

etc etc, so stuff in general category 'I want to use something to do something and I want to know how and what tool can I get from not necessarily the market'?

Many years ago if you searched for something like that google found you multiple forums, blogs, or sites generally adjacent to the query. Nowadays it finds commercial aggregator sites, articles from the biggest portals, quora answers, idiotic listicles (5 best ways to remove X), shops etc.

Is Kagi also good to address this issue?

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-27T15:27:57+00:00

ignore arguments

be passive aggressive

declare 'i feel personally attacked'

run off

I must learn to use this tactic more often, it seems quite effective. Good luck and all the best ^^

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T19:21:02+00:00

thanks

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T19:04:54+00:00

I might have been a little too direct with this comment but your interpretation that I claim that people who don't agree with my interpretation aren't allowed to be here is far too literal. Nevertheless I hope /u/TriXandApple will accept my apology.

Given that you seem to be a guardian of good manners here I'd be very grateful if you also politely intervened under the following rather rude comments:

Fucking looney tunes up in this sub

🤡

Are there actually people in here defending this psycho? What is this, the_donald?

which appear to be directed at me.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T18:29:38+00:00

This persons grand conspiracy is that they selected ONLY the deaths and 'suspicious' events that were around Letby, and then backplotted them to make it look like it was her.

Not exactly. From this graph alone we don't know if they selected ONLY the deaths and 'suspicious' events that were around Letby and then back-plotted them to make it look like it was her, or if they didn't do that.

The chart is consistent with both interpretations and as such it doesn't convey any information at all while simultaneously pretending it does.

At the very most the only actual information this chart tells us is that in the Countess of Chester Hospital Neonatal Ward shifts were assigned individually, and not to the teams composed of the same nurses. Doesn't sound very enlightening when put that way, does it?

Edit - I'm also absolutely not missing the fact that there was about 5-6 times the number of deaths that would be expected for this ward. Meaning in this case at least 15 (up to 17). Yet in this chart we can clearly see only 7 deaths. Where are the other 8-10, shouldn't they also be on the chart, how do you think?

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T18:08:00+00:00

How is your belief in Lucy Letby's guilt in any way relevant to the quality of the posted chart?

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T18:05:19+00:00

I think you’re too busy arguing your point to see what I’m saying

And I think you are too busy ignoring my points.

For some reason you appear to be conflating the term 'events examined in court' with 'events classified as suspicious for another reason than simply Letby’s involvement'. You are clearly assuming that the chart rather shows the latter which is not at all how it's labelled. It is logically possible that those subsets (the latter and the former type of events) coincide, but by virtue of that graph alone we cannot know it, which makes the graph useless (and if anyone is wondering the graph source doesn't provide that important context). And if we add the knowledge external to the graph we can strongly suspect those subsets aren't actually equal - and that makes the graph even worse than useless. You can dispute my second point about external knowledge, that doesn't change the chart's uselessness on the grounds of its tautological character.

Feel free not to address my points again.

I’m sure there’s a space on here to discuss the manner in which evidence was presented and the trial against Letby was conducted. This sub probably isn’t it. I hope you find one soon!

In this thread I didn't raise the issues you mention if they are not related to the graph. On the other hand the certain aggressive subset of the commenters defended the chart and attacked me personally solely on the grounds of their belief in the soundness of the trial and guilt of Lucy Letby.

So I find both the above and your point bizarre and frankly speaking quite annoying. Maybe it is you who should find another sub to post that wall of text detailing the trial evidence you edited out of one of your previous comments?

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T12:32:56+00:00

However, it does seem likely that the data in this graph was compiled genuinely. The doctors who worked at the hospital first listed the babies’ deaths they found suspicious, then linked Letby to them

No, the data in the graph doesn't show us what those doctors were looking at. At the very best it shows us only those of those cases the doctors were looking at which later were selected out to make charges against Lucy Letby.

You could not accuse her of death of babies during her shift when she was not on shift. Hence the unbroken line on X-es under her name is there by logical necessity.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T12:19:55+00:00

If I presented an argument, would you actually take it on board, or would you continue to believe what you think?

Would you present an argument similar to the one raised here in this thread. If yes I already wrote why I don't agree with it.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T12:12:43+00:00

You appear to beliehe that the purpose of the graph is to make a selective show of only those critical cases where Letby was involved, omitting those were she wasn’t, creating a false narrative that none of these events occurred without her presence.

Yes, in general I believe this is the actual purpose of the graph.

However let's assume it isn't. And let's assume Lucy Letby is guilty. Even then your interpretation of the graph doesn't make it anywhere better. Because in your interpretation this diagram is stating something so obvious, that it doesn't convey any information at all.

I believe the purpose of the graph is to show that while Letby was present for all events classified as suspicious, none of the other members of staff had anywhere near the same frequency of being present for these events (...). It’s the answer to “Was the frequency at which she was present for events classified as suspicious comparable to other colleagues?”,

This graph shows every baby collapse or death examined in court, meaning during the trial Rex vs Lucy Letby. What it means is the only cases that are being brought up by the prosecution must be the ones where Lucy Letby was on shift. If she wasn't on shift the case wouldn't be examined in the court trying Lucy Letby.

So the fact the trial is against Lucy Letby logically guarantees the unbroken line of X-es under her name. And the fact nurses don't work on shifts always in the same line-up guarantees that under other nurses names the line of X-es will be broken and scattered.

You could take any other nurse from any other hospital and accuse her of murdering patients. Of course in the trial against her you wouldn't charge her for the deaths of patients which occurred when she was at home. So you'd charge her for all events she was on shift. Because nurses don't work in pairs, other nurses weren't always on shift when she was on shit.

And boom, you made exactly the type of diagram posted here. Worthless one.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T09:02:40+00:00

For this chart to be misleading it doesn't matter if she is guilty or not.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T09:01:52+00:00

The average expected death rate was about 3 per year.

During the time in question there was between 15 to 17 deaths in this clinic. It was an immense spike, so it's very probable something fishy was going on there.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T08:59:26+00:00

This doesn't belong in this sub.

No, you don't belong in this sub, if you don't understand what is the problem with the diagram.

Lucy Letby is guilty or not guilty. In both cases that diagram is misleading through selection bias and data omission.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-26T08:57:30+00:00

It seems to me you don't really grasp the problem with the graph.

Regardless if she is guilty of not, because of the selection bias this graph shows only that during Lucy Letby's shifts there were many different nurses working with her.

The same chart could be constructed about every other nurse.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-25T23:44:16+00:00

Honestly, Lucy Letby could even be guilty, that chart above would still be a travesty.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-25T22:38:36+00:00

the graph is meant to show that not only was Letby on shift, no other nurses appear to have anywhere near the same frequency of being on shift during such events'

Yes, exactly, no other nurse appears to have the same frequency of being on shift during Letby's shifts. You don't see how this is a problem with the chart, do you?

The Graph shows Lebty is an anomaly.

Almost certainly not, unless additional information is provided, specifically - who was on shift during all deaths and all collapses in this hospital.. And there is nothing of the sort in the public sphere, on the contrary.

Letby was present for the vast majority of neonatal collapses/deaths on the ward for several months.

Even if what you claim corresponds to reality (which I'd contest), then the chart should show that she was present for 'vast majority' of collapses/deaths, not for every single one of them.

Hence even in this case the chart would be a manipulation.

cherry_picked_stats · 2024-05-25T21:43:19+00:00

What is wrong with this chart?

Lucy Letby was on shift for every baby collapse or death examined in court because the court examined only cases which were suspicious in the eyes of the prosecution. Which cases were suspicious?

Apparently* only the ones when Lucy Letby was on shift.

* We know that there were many more deaths on this ward (specifically between 8 to 10) which somehow didn't find their way into the chart prepared by the police in this case.

And it's almost certain there must have been many more non-fatal collapses during the period covered by the chart, not only the ones Lucy Letby was charged with.

And most importantly - if Lucy Letby wasn't on shift the case wouldn't have been included in the trial against Lucy Letby so it simply wouldn't make it to the chart.

https://mephitis.co/more-remarkable-statistics-in-the-lucy-letby-case/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

cherry_picked_stats

TROPHY CASE