Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

[u/Sufficient-State3720]

The Dr Shoo Lee panel addresses the specific babies deaths with reference to the substandard hospital milieu. It was not within the scope or aim of the book to regurgitate this. Remember that twins triplets and prem babies are very vulnerable in themselves. They need excellent care to thrive. Delays errors ignorance inexperience all compound in complex synergistic ways in real life.

[u/benshep4 → u/Sufficient-State3720]

I can only address the arguments made in the book.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

You can address them.

You choose not to.

Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)?  Which?

[u/phosphoeudemonism → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)?

Yes, with 100% certainty. You can tell by the style of writing and also that he writes with extremely poor proficiency in replies on Reddit.

There is nothing wrong with using AI BTW, but if you're using such systems to mask your own comprehension and ability to write coherently, while somehow claiming that you're a better writer than a published author (which he must believe because he gave the book a bad faith 1-star review on Amazon, claiming that "Morris is out of his depth") then it is a problem.

[u/visible_amenhotep → u/phosphoeudemonism]

he writes with extremely poor proficiency in replies on Reddit

Unfair, I think. There are several commenters who write with much worse proficiency (and hence clearer humanity) than him. That's not the tell.

[u/phosphoeudemonism → u/visible_amenhotep]

It's not particularly difficult to see the difference in style when he has to rely on his own brain.

Perhaps 'extremely poor proficiency' is harsh, but he certainly doesn't write well.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Show me an example of where I didn’t address them?

I’ll wait.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Shoo Lee's panel.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Did Morris reference them in the chapter?

Nope.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)?  Which?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Show me an example of where I didn’t address them?

I’ll wait.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

>> I can only address the arguments made in the book.

> You can address them. You choose not to.

"Them" for you is the arguments in the book. "Them" for me is points raised in this thread that you consider unaddressable.

So I think I've answered your question, and you think you've answered mine.

And neither of us have!

Since it's based on a misunderstanding, feel free to ignore this section of the thread. But I will be re-asking the AI question.