Lucy Letby Case #68

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yeah it is. They haven’t got a clue, the bunch of clowns 🤡😆
---

Yeah, that’s about right. Bloody idiot he is!
---
Talking of clowns… If anyone fancies a laugh these nutters are holding another Zoom meeting on Tuesday
Let’s hope the “social media” team are logging in as well

 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
That bar chart shows clear as day that something (LL) was wrong at COCH in 2015/16. Much higher mortality rate than in the years before and after and much higher than the wider area of Chester and Chester West mortality rate. I’m inclined to think that the people presenting this data know they are spouting rubbish too
Yes I think they do, I checked the original post earlier & they've deleted a lot of their comments about the graph & some of the comments of one of the people that was arguing with them
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
I’ve just had a look for the source, I assumed it was an official ons/mbrrace graph but it isn’t. I bet it’s something science on trial made up themselves
yes they definitely did the graph themselves, it was probably Gill that said it so either him or one of his buddies. I think they used the FOI report and the ONS stats.
Ah, ok. Makes sense now that it doesn't make sense, if that makes sense! 😂 😂😂

Anyone understand the MBRRACE "crude" and "stabilised and adjusted" bit?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 7
Ah, ok. Makes sense now that it doesn't make sense, if that makes sense! 😂 😂😂

Anyone understand the MBRRACE "crude" and "stabilised and adjusted" bit?
I’m not sure what they mean either, sorry
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
I’m not sure what they mean either, sorry
I swear they are just making stuff up and using "sciencey" language to make it sound credible.

I have two science-related degrees and am about to do a third but just cannot understand a word of what they are saying. 🤷‍♀️
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 21
I swear they are just making stuff up and using "sciencey" language to make it sound credible.

I have two science-related degrees and am about to do a third but just cannot understand a word of what they are saying. 🤷‍♀️
They’re babbling a lot of shite. I don’t have any degree and I can tell that.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 20
I swear they are just making stuff up and using "sciencey" language to make it sound credible.

I have two science-related degrees and am about to do a third but just cannot understand a word of what they are saying. 🤷‍♀️
Yes, they’ve gotta be making it up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
Have you seen the drunk guy with bad sinuses who never brushes his hair & doesn't appear to have topped up his leccy this week?



And some of his fans are worse than him.

1693786844538.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Ah, ok. Makes sense now that it doesn't make sense, if that makes sense! 😂 😂😂

Anyone understand the MBRRACE "crude" and "stabilised and adjusted" bit?
I think crude and adjusted relates to the type of data rather than people. I have a colleague that is involved in mmbrace data and audits for our unit so I'll ask her when I next see her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
So he now admits it was " won't" not " went" but still feels the note is about Lucy's innocence although I always thought it was dripping with her guilt. Do these people see a damsels in distress and just want to save her but not realise there is a another side and the pain she caused not only to vulnerable little babies but to their families.
MBRRACE is a report into maternal and neonatal deaths but I don't understand what the figures mean wheter they are national data or for the North West of England.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
Call me stupid but did at least 13 babies not die at CoC during the period of the case, so why is the grey line still only at 3.25ish deaths per thousand? Shouldn’t that be 3.25 deaths per hundred?
I mean I’m stupid, but am I now just showing my stupid?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6
Call me stupid but did at least 13 babies not die at CoC during the period of the case, so why is the grey line still only at 3.25ish deaths per thousand? Shouldn’t that be 3.25 deaths per hundred?
I mean I’m stupid, but am I now just showing my stupid?
The number of neonatal deaths at Chester is likely to be higher than 13 as it will include neonatal babies that never entered NNU. It then is a percentage out of all live births. We don't know who produced the graph and how reliable the data is, it seems to contain data that no one really understands the significance of and what it relates to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
The number of neonatal deaths at Chester is likely to be higher than 13 as it will include neonatal babies that never entered NNU. It then is a percentage out of all live births. We don't know who produced the graph and how reliable the data is, it seems to contain data that no one really understands the significance of and what it relates to.
It’s not a percentage though. It’s deaths per 1000. There is no way 1000s and 1000s went through the neonatal unit in the time period. More like 400.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.