cyprusgrump wrote:ErLOLZ you are mental...
3,000 was a typo, I changed it... You knew that but WTF eh, any port in a storm...
No I did not know it. You predicted 3k, then a couple of hours later you predicted 4k. So NOW you claim 3k was a 'typo'. Not only are you claiming 3000 was a typo you are also claiming that if it ends up being 4999 then you will still 'win'. So from 3k to 4k to 5k in less than 2 days. Impressive goal moving indeed, all whilst accusing ME of goal post moving. So precitable.
cyprusgrump wrote:As for the rest, we can see (and remember) what you posted... You are now moving the goalposts like Kiks...
Yeah we can. It is there in 'black and white'. We can see despite all your bluster and twisting and distortion that I have been totally and absolutely consistent on which numbers I start with because of their hardness and which I rate less highly because of their softness. I have always placed total deaths all causes 1st, have placed confirmed positives 2nd and placed covid deaths 3rd and then things like IFR and 'herd immunity threshold %' last. There are those that have used the hard ONS numbers on excess deaths when they suit and not when they do not - namely YOU. When they had not shown yet any excess deaths in a week, it was Tim , happy clapped along by you, that FIRST mentioned them. Then when they showed 6000 more deaths in week 14 than expected, Tim mentioned this one and you not at all. When they went from there to 8000 in week 15, 12000 week 16, 11500 week 17, 8000 week 19 you said nothing about them and Tim simply kept saying 'yeah but look at the 'discrepancy' with the totally soft covid death numbers. You did not mention these figures again until you mentioned week 30 that saw a 161 less deaths that week than expected. 161 less having ignored the 50,000 more in previous week ytd. All whilst accusing others of 'cherry picking' even when they were not and you so blatantly are.
cyprusgrump wrote:I'm not going to waste time arguing with you,
Of course not.
cyprusgrump wrote:I'll just post the stuff that makes your position look ridiculous on a regular basis... Trust me, I will...
What like the virus is rapidly dying out almost everywhere
cyprusgrump wrote:My prediction is <4,000 World-Wide deaths by the end of August... I'm on safe ground really, if it is 10,000 then hands up I am wrong... If it is even slightly under 5,000 then (by Kiks rules) the trend is in my direction and it is a goal for me!
And yet again you just show what a twat you really are. If the number at end of august is 5k then it will be the SAME as it was on 25 June when you claimed the virus was rapidly dying out everywhere. So 60 days AFTER the point at which you claimed the virus was rapidly dying out almost everywhere, if the global daily death rate is the SAME as then you will claim a 'goal'. No wonder you think so highly of yourself.
Call me a cynic but I think if you had been correct that it was rapidly dying out almost everywhere on june 25 then by the end of august you would predict LESS global daily deaths and not the SAME amount
cyprusgrump wrote:Oh and I was right about the virus dying out... Look at the numbers, one day you'll have to admit that too...
No you were not and it is the numbers we now have that PROVE you to have been wrong then. So you are now trying a monumental shifting of goalposts, pitch and stadium. The virus WILL die out at some point of course. That is NOT what you said. You said on 25 June it WAS ALREADY rapidly dying out, then at that point in time. About that, the claim you actually made and not your current revision, it is just plain absolute fact from the numbers we have had subsequently that it was NOT rapidly dying out almost everywhere THEN. In fact over all globally it was continuing to rapidly spread and increase. When it does die out in the future you will still have been proven to have been totally and utterly wrong in the claim that it was rapidly dying out then. You were wrong and nothing that happens in the future can change that FACT.
