HK SARS deaths reach new high

CNN Asia ^ | 4.18.03

[_Jim]

During that wickiwup, some suggested that the US was engaged in a secret process of innoculating or vacinating America

AND - I still want to *know* when those 'chems' were loaded aboard those *many* aircraft parked at the gates - I have seen fuel truck and baggage cars - how about tankers carrying biological agents - never saw any ...

I *also* want to *know* how the new weight calculations were made - how the ranks of the passengers were mandatorily 'thinned' in order to allow x thousands of gallons of the 'chem' to be sprayed ...

SPRAYING from 35,000 feet though the jetstream is effective?

I wouldn't think so ... what comes to mind is a) the sun's UV effects on whatever-it-is that is purported to be sprayed and b) the cold COLD temps at that altitude as well ...

[R W Reactionairy]

"You have either a) over-generalized or b) taken out of context what I wrote or missed my intended meaning completely. I posted what I posted and still stand by them. Go back and re-read them. They are veritable nuggets of commnon sense and wisdom ..."

Out of context??? Here is the exchange I was referring to:

To: _Jim [from Axenolith]
How does a histogram constructed from a data set that excludes >85% of the total possible cases reveal JACK?!?!

Know what? It doesn't...

To: Axenolith [from _jim]
Know what? It doesn't...

SURE it can be and is meaningful - IF a random selection are 'culled' from the group - or a process excludes a certain random (BASED on no criteria which otherwise skew the result) part of the population from consideration in the first place.

.It's called 'sampling' and it's done all the time in a multitude of fields from semiconductors testing to medicine ...

20 posted on 04/19/2003 8:49 PM PDT by _Jim ( _Jim To: Axenolith

You'll *also* note that this was a histogram based on "date of onset" - this would *naturally* cull a certain number of samples from this chart (those *not* possessing an 'onset date') - and it would most likely be about as random a factor as one could find, too, to 'cull' with.

This data was / is known to be unreliable. Unless you have an "in" with the PRC spin masters there is no way you can know whether the data was fudged or unbelievably sloppy. You appear to presume randomness in the face of that fact that you are dealing with data reported by a Government with an obvious agenda. What you wrote appears to be either an expression of your belief that a sample drawn from a universe that was was not reflective of reality accurately reflected reality ... or that reporting "onset date" somehow validated the data ... or maybe that in theory random under reporting might yield a representative subset of the universe.

The latter may be correct, but as a defense of the conclusion you drew from the histogram, it might be a "nugget" but not one of "common sense" or "wisdom."