The Pat Kenny Show

boardise

meeeeh wrote: »

This time I agree with them. What Tony Holohan is saying is equivalent to thinking that not selling condoms will prevent people having sex.

This 'analogy' does not work at all....sounds clever but devoid of logic.

Tell me how

boardise wrote: »

This 'analogy' does not work at all....sounds clever but devoid of logic.

The analogy is fine. It works.

BPKS

Read an article saying that the 'bank of mom and dad' is propping up house prices in South County Dublin.

I wonder will Pat address this during his next discussion on the current housing crisis instead of just blaming the cuckoo funds?

hamburgham

BPKS wrote: »

Read an article saying that the 'bank of mom and dad' is propping up house prices in South County Dublin.

I wonder will Pat address this during his next discussion on the current housing crisis instead of just blaming the cuckoo funds?

You mean the ‘bonk of mom and dad”.

boardise

Tell me how wrote: »

The analogy is fine. It works.

Care to tell me how ?

I don't think you will and I don't think you can but as the saying goes -there's no harm in asking .
I might get a surprise lesson in logic and then I'd be a better person . what's to lose ?

meeeeh

boardise wrote: »

Care to tell me how ?

I don't think you will and I don't think you can but as the saying goes -there's no harm in asking .
I might get a surprise lesson in logic and then I'd be a better person . what's to lose ?

It's not that hard to figure it out.

Tell me how

boardise wrote: »

Care to tell me how ?

I don't think you will and I don't think you can but as the saying goes -there's no harm in asking .
I might get a surprise lesson in logic and then I'd be a better person . what's to lose ?

Really? You couldn't grasp it?

The poster implied that the message from NPHET was that a test with such efficacy was effectively worthless and people should continue to do what they are telling them to do.

The poster compared this very simply to saying that if condoms weren't available that people would stop having sex because of the fears around unwanted pregnancy, STD's etc. We al know that obviously would be a ludicrous thing to suggest and so we can then consider that this posters view of NPHET's reaction to the antigen tests was also ludicrous.

Now, if you want to get in to the pedantry of the literal comparison between the two scenarios then I would tell you that A, you don't know how analogies are used and B, you'll have to find someone else to have that discussion with you.

boardise

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not that hard to figure it out.

Sorry -it doesn't compute at all . One of the greatest pieces of nonsense I've come across.

boardise

Tell me how wrote: »

Really? You couldn't grasp it?

The poster implied that the message from NPHET was that a test with such efficacy was effectively worthless and people should continue to do what they are telling them to do.

The poster compared this very simply to saying that if condoms weren't available that people would stop having sex because of the fears around unwanted pregnancy, STD's etc. We al know that obviously would be a ludicrous thing to suggest and so we can then consider that this posters view of NPHET's reaction to the antigen tests was also ludicrous.

Now, if you want to get in to the pedantry of the literal comparison between the two scenarios then I would tell you that A, you don't know how analogies are used and B, you'll have to find someone else to have that discussion with you.

Thanks for making the effort -but the 'explanation' offered comes through as a jumble of garbled nonsense . I read it three times with increasing confusion each time.
[ Incidentally, I've been trained as a linguist and have engaged with multifarious aspects of linguistics for almost 50 years -I reckon I have a pretty good handle on what constitutes analogical reasoning. Your surmise about my ignorance in this matter would be quite wide of the mark.
It is also possible of course that your training and background is even more advanced than mine . I make no assumption in that regard.]
I'm not trying to be rude or combative..just stating my genuine reaction.
I'm happy to accept that there is room in your capacious logic to derive some sense or enlightenment from the 'analogy' in question.
So we'll leave it be and go our way in peace and amity.

meeeeh

boardise wrote: »

Sorry -it doesn't compute at all . One of the greatest pieces of nonsense I've come across.

Sorry I should know we are dealing with a troll. Tell me how showed you more courtesy than you deserved. You made a statement about my post without explaining why you think it doesn't work. Your ego might expect people will willingly comply with your demands to explain themselves without you contributing anything but unfortunately you posted nothing to deserve respect like that.

Tell me how

boardise wrote: »

Thanks for making the effort -but the 'explanation' offered comes through as a jumble of garbled nonsense . I read it three times with increasing confusion each time.
[ Incidentally, I've been trained as a linguist and have engaged with multifarious aspects of linguistics for almost 50 years -I reckon I have a pretty good handle on what constitutes analogical reasoning. Your surmise about my ignorance in this matter would be quite wide of the mark.
It is also possible of course that your training and background is even more advanced than mine . I make no assumption in that regard.]
I'm not trying to be rude or combative..just stating my genuine reaction.
I'm happy to accept that there is room in your capacious logic to derive some sense or enlightenment from the 'analogy' in question.
So we'll leave it be and go our way in peace and amity.

Well done on your education and 50 years career in linguistics. Maybe some continued education in punctuation and the appropriate use of parentheses versus square brackets would compliment this nicely.

BPKS

Yesterday, Pat Kenny had a conspiracy theory slot where they reviewed the murder of Martin Luther King and seemed to come down on the side of the conspiracy that he was killed by the FBI with the help of local mafia.

It wasn't long ago that Pat was telling us that conspiracy theorists were a danger to the civilised world.

Does it depend on the theory?

EmmetSpiceland

BPKS wrote: »

Yesterday, Pat Kenny had a conspiracy theory slot where they reviewed the murder of Martin Luther King and seemed to come down on the side of the conspiracy that he was killed by the FBI with the help of local mafia.

It wasn't long ago that Pat was telling us that conspiracy theorists were a danger to the civilised world.

Does it depend on the theory?

Did the final “conclusion” not stated that James Earl Ray acted alone, or at least without government support, and that this was established by an investigation commissioned by Bill Clinton?

The “caveat” was that it was a government inquiry and that would leave it open to conspiracy and mistrust.

BPKS

BPKS wrote: »

Yesterday, Pat Kenny had a conspiracy theory slot where they reviewed the murder of Martin Luther King and seemed to come down on the side of the conspiracy that he was killed by the FBI with the help of local mafia.

It wasn't long ago that Pat was telling us that conspiracy theorists were a danger to the civilised world.

Does it depend on the theory?

It probably does depend on the conspiracy theory in fairness.

I personally believe that Robert F Kennedy was assassinated, in a way that hasn't been acknowledged, for example; maybe it was the Mafia, maybe someone else. I wouldn't identify as a conspiracy-theorist (I think they call themselves skeptics/ virgins), but would draw a sharp distinction between that sort of hunch and the kind of people who believe RTE staff are drinking some kind of brain-fluid, drawn from children, to keep themselves young.

Of course there are degrees of batshït theories.

hotmail.com

BPKS wrote: »

Yesterday, Pat Kenny had a conspiracy theory slot where they reviewed the murder of Martin Luther King and seemed to come down on the side of the conspiracy that he was killed by the FBI with the help of local mafia.

It wasn't long ago that Pat was telling us that conspiracy theorists were a danger to the civilised world.

Does it depend on the theory?

He also read out a tweet using the word Junkie recently.

Pat just chases ratings like the rest of them. He ain't no different.

He use to have fantastic slots on history books. Now he's reduced to discussing American conspiracy rubbish.

BPKS

Pat not happy with Donnelly's attitude towards his beloved antigen tests. Accusing him of propaganda.

2smiggy

With all Pat's talk, he does not have a clue how the Antigen tests work, Donnelly had to explain it to him, and I don't think he still got it.

If you get a positive result , it is 99% probable you are infected. It is the negative results that are highly inaccurate, especially with asymptomatic people. He was trying to explain to Pat that a negative test is in fact useless. The only benefit of them is for positive results.

Cole

BPKS wrote: »

Pat not happy with Donnelly's attitude towards his beloved antigen tests. Accusing him of propaganda.

Pat's losing the plot a bit on this. I thought Donnelly explained his position pretty clearly on the antigen test at the end of the interview and Pat didn't have a lot to come back on...and ended up cutting Donnelly off at the end.

He's turning into the stereotypical 'grumpy old man'...almost offensive at times. His rant against (some)"thick Americans" earlier in the week wasn't his finest moment either.

hotmail.com

2smiggy wrote: »

With all Pat's talk, he does not have a clue how the Antigen tests work, Donnelly had to explain it to him, and I don't think he still got it.

If you get a positive result , it is 99% probable you are infected. It is the negative results that are highly inaccurate, especially with asymptomatic people. He was trying to explain to Pat that a negative test is in fact useless. The only benefit of them is for positive results.

I agree with Pat on this one.

It will pick up some cases but allow things to return to normal. The aim should be to return to normal and end this "cancel everything" policy Ireland adopted since last March.

I think we accept that the virus is still going to spread but these tests will reduce the numbers.

2smiggy

Cole wrote: »

Pat's losing the plot a bit on this. I thought Donnelly explained his position pretty clearly on the antigen test at the end of the interview and Pat didn't have a lot to come back on...and ended up cutting Donnelly off at the end.

He's turning into the stereotypical 'grumpy old man'...almost offensive at times. His rant against (some)"thick Americans" earlier in the week wasn't his finest moment either.

I thought Donnelly explained it very clearly (I can't believe I would ever have typed that)

2smiggy

hotmail.com wrote: »

I agree with Pat on this one.

It will pick up some cases but allow things to return to normal. The aim should be to return to normal and end this "cancel everything" policy Ireland adopted since last March.

I think we accept that the virus is still going to spread but these tests will reduce that possibility.

I want things to get back to normal as fast as possible, but a negative result from these tests are meaningless. They are only of use if the result is positive.

If you went for a cancer screening and were given a negative test result, but told the test was only 50% accurate, you would not go on your merry way !! I wouldn't.

They don't want people to think just because you test negative with these, you can carry on as if you are not infected.

Using them on everyone at a work setting once a week would be a good use of them, not for a group of people going for a gathering and assuming they are all negative because the antigen test said so.

Cole

hotmail.com wrote: »

I agree with Pat on this one.

It will pick up some cases but allow things to return to normal. The aim should be to return to normal and end this "cancel everything" policy Ireland adopted since last March.

I think we accept that the virus is still going to spread but these tests will reduce the numbers.

I don't think Donnelly is necessarily in opposition to this. It's just that Pat won't accept any nuance or qualification on their use.

meeeeh

I missed most of the interview but I caught the last bit. That was funny, it's almost like nothing negative can be mentioned about antigen testing or you are not a true believer. Not worthy of Pat's stamp of approval.

BPKS

Cole wrote: »

Pat's losing the plot a bit on this. I thought Donnelly explained his position pretty clearly on the antigen test at the end of the interview and Pat didn't have a lot to come back on...and ended up cutting Donnelly off at the end.

He's turning into the stereotypical 'grumpy old man'...almost offensive at times. His rant against (some)"thick Americans" earlier in the week wasn't his finest moment either.

I was laughing at his rant against Thick Americans.

This coming from people who returned the party to power a decade after they lead the country into financial ruin. Yes Pat - we are waaaaay smarter than those dumb Americans.

BPKS

meeeeh wrote: »

I missed most of the interview but I caught the last bit. That was funny, it's almost like nothing negative can be mentioned about antigen testing or you are not a true believer. Not worthy of Pat's stamp of approval.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the terrace of the 5 Star Marker Hotel when Pat and his friends are discussing Antigen test over Lobster and €300 bottles of wine in a months time.

meeeeh

BPKS wrote: »

I was laughing at his rant against Thick Americans.

This coming from people who returned the party to power a decade after they lead the country into financial ruin. Yes Pat - we are waaaaay smarter than those dumb Americans.

That's not fair comparison. There are some extremely smart and educated Americans but countries with high inequality also produce high proportion of extremely ignorant people. Similarly in UK.

Americans were always known for ignorance (I remember an example of college student asking lecturer if Europe is part of Italy). The fact that there is very little of public funded media and influence of social media just makes everything worse.

Poor woman and her poor daughter.

BPKS

Jesus I remember that show "Family" from 27 years ago - I remember it being a great watch even as a young fella.

Has a ring of Shane Meadows TV series from recent years to it IIRC.

Wouldn't mind watching that back - will have a look on youtube.

Klonker

Cole wrote: »

I don't think Donnelly is necessarily in opposition to this. It's just that Pat won't accept any nuance or qualification on their use.

I have to say I agree with Pat. Donnelly said he's for antigen testing, then by trying to defend NPHET's stance on them went on the describe basically how useless they were. Pat's point was of they are as useless as you are describing them then why are you for them?

And as pointed out earlier in the interview, comparing antigen tests accuracy against PCR is not a good measurement because PCR tests are not accurate. There are people still testing positive on PCR tests months after they've had covid and are not infectious. This is not what the measurement of accurate testing should be, PCR are inaccurate in the other extreme.

Cole

Klonker wrote: »

I have to say I agree with Pat. Donnelly said he's for antigen testing, then by trying to defend NPHET's stance on them went on the describe basically how useless they were. Pat's point was of they are as useless as you are describing them then why are you for them?

And as pointed out earlier in the interview, comparing antigen tests accuracy against PCR is not a good measurement because PCR tests are not accurate. There are people still testing positive on PCR tests months after they've had covid and are not infectious. This is not what the measurement of accurate testing should be, PCR are inaccurate in the other extreme.

I've got limited knowledge on the whole antigen/PCR vs antigen tests thing, but that's not how I heard the interview it at all. When Pat challenged him on his defence of NPHET ("propaganda" claim) and said he was actually saying that antigen testing is useless, I thought Donnelly was heading for trainwreck interview, but he came back at Pat with the clearest explanation I've heard of the qualified endorsement that he (and NPHET I presume) have for antigen testing.

If you test positive on an antigen test, assume you're positive (and get your PCR test for confirmation and to allow for contact tracing).
Test negative, assume you still might be positive...and keep following covid safety guidance.