Let’s hope the “social media” team are logging in as wellYeah 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
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 themThat 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
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
Ah, ok. Makes sense now that it doesn't make sense, if that makes sense!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.
I’m not sure what they mean either, sorryAh, 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 swear they are just making stuff up and using "sciencey" language to make it sound credible.I’m not sure what they mean either, sorry
They’re babbling a lot of shite. I don’t have any degree and I can tell that.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!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.
Why are all the serial killer's fans ugly, male, middle aged and weird. Very oddHave 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.
View attachment 2424513
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.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?
Oooft! Get back in the basement palHave 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.
View attachment 2424513
I don’t think he’s ever left the basement by the look of that videoOooft! Get back in the basement pal
Thanks for sharing, am now back on the fenceHave 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.
View attachment 2424513
Same.Thanks for sharing, am now back on the fence
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.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?
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.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.
Glad someone here’s got a brain. Throw the iSame.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?