Walleye, Dear fellow brother of the angle
Please do me a great favour and use a laptop before commenting on something you find difficult to see/understand on a "smart"phone;
I am not your skivvie.
Likewise please DO NOT EVER put words into my mouth or condescend to know what I know or think again. Re:
"Seeking, you know for most of the start of the first graph, we were only testing folk admitted to hospital. Then testing was expanded and more people were tested who were showing symptoms."
I do not know that at all.
I know you claim it but you have presented no credible evidence for it and in reality the number of tests increasing is the reason for the rise in cases.
That is why you have to use the ratio of deaths/cases. You cannot have it both ways.
More to the point, if you have a problem with this graph below, which is based on the best available data from HMG (as referenced):
View attachment 53116
anyway again, if you have different information please post it (I suspect you will find absolutely nothing to support your allegation but will continue to follow your posts with interest to see if you can actually prove it! Come on, you give it a try. Please.
Regarding your second.
Really?
If you cannot be bothered to put yourself out a bit by doing all the above, but can be bothered enough by the dismal argument you make to comment, surely you can understand how that will raise all manner of flags.
The graph is here, so you can see it better (your reproductions degrade the image):
View attachment 53115
Note also that the HMG B/S about the so-called 2nd Wave (promoted only by Lockdown proponents as far as I can see) has also been called out by an eminent statistician with far more clout than I :
Under the headline:
"Number 10 cherry-picked 'spurious' Covid data to justify England's second lockdown and may have intended to frighten the public, top Cambridge statistician claims
- Sir David Spiegelhalter suggested the Government tried to 'manipulate' Britons
- Cherry-picked 'worst-case scenarios' to 'instill a certain emotional reaction'
- No10 lambasted for its apocalyptic graphs and spurious data shown to public"
Are the following words spoken by him:
"The Cambridge professor told MPs today: 'I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course. But if someone was really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do...
Doom-mongering graphs which predicted 50,000 cases by mid-October and 4,000 deaths a day by late November were used by Downing Street to justify England's second lockdown...
At the beginning we were told up to 500,000 deaths could occur, yeah, okay, if we did absolutely nothing.
Then we had that graph, the famous one where cases were going to double every week and we'd end up with 49,000 by the end of October. In fact we had 14,000 by the end of October reported...
Those projections were made by one team early in October under certain very pessimistic assumptions.
They'd already been revised twice by the time they were shown to the public so it was completely inappropriate to present them to the public.
I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong, I'm not making any comment about that.
What I'm objecting to strongly is the fact such spurious data and graphs were being presented to the public as a justification for the decisions that were being made.
You didn't need that graph, you just needed quite short-term projections to tell something needed to be done or we could be in real trouble very quickly.
There is good data available and yet at some point the need to persuade people, to instill a certain emotional reaction in people seems to take over at really quite a high level of decision making. I think it's quite unfortunate....
That is not trustworthy communications, these are based on extreme assumptions that we just don't do anything.
I don't want to ascribe motivation to anyone of course but if someone were really trying to manipulate the audience and frighten them and persuade them that what was being done was correct, rather than genuinely inform them, then this is the kind of thing they might do.
Because no matter what you say about scenarios they will be interpreted as predictions.' "
Eminent statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter suggested the Government tried to manipulate Britons rather than genuinely inform them on the true scale of the crisis.
www.dailymail.co.uk
And that is because they were presented by HMG's top bods (conflicted ones at that) as predictions.
Note I am not endorsing the Mail as a brilliant source of knowledge, but his words should give ANYONE pause for thought before supporting fascistic control (whether they think it is only temporary or not)
Also, knowing how both SFF and Lockdown proponents operate, I expect that their only take away from all the above to justify their extreme view is:
"I'm not saying the judgment [to decide to go into lockdown] was wrong..."
Perhaps the cheerleaders of Lockdown need to understand where I am coming from
1. I know nobody who has died of CV19 or been harmed by the virus, though I am aware 2nd hand of very rare but nasty stories of "long covid" and I know many who've had it.
2. I wish it had been around a couple of years ago to quickly take away a close relative with cancer and other comorbidities who spent 3 months being pumped full or morphine and dying a dismal long death in a care home.
3. The social and economic impact of the overreactions to CV19 (Lockdown, which data comparisons between most European countries c.f. Sweden indicates was not required) has directly impacted, in a very bad way, the lives and livelyhoods of myself and many very close young and middle aged relatives and friends in ways I could never have envisaged, whilst the "Chattering Classes" bleat about long CV19 whilst trying to justify how the lives of folk who are above-average life expectancy are more important than the vast majority of joe public.
A pox on their houses.
Make it all up, aye right...
