How much worse than the published figures do you think it is?So killer b
If you need justification that this disgraced government are lying to people
The reporting of cases, hospitalisation and deaths are manipulated.
Will you continue using a face mask after 19 July?
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
How much do you think they lie?
I don't know. You're the guy who reckons the figures are lies.
Yes
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
and the rest is a half-truth
elbows
Well-Known Member
People take behavioural cues from others, that much I have to accept. All the more reason not to go along with it though, because you become part of the momentum of moving away from masks, making others feel awkward for still wearing one in shops.
I dont accept 'if not now then when?' bullshit given we arent even 18 months into restrictions and behavioural changes, and that we are in the middle of an unpleasant wave that is not expected to remain like this forever, and that the vaccination programme is still in progress.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
It's probably more useful to point to actual data that refutes the official numbers, if what you're saying is the numbers are far worse than reported, and knowingly manipulated.
Not saying they're not. But 'the government lie' doesn't really provide any context here. Also its the exact same accusation - used in the opposite way - that many anti-mask/vax lot use to justify their position e.g. folk dying because of unrelated issues, but officially listed as a Covid death because they had it 2 weeks prior - so as to bump up the numbers and scare everyone into getting jabbed.
elbows
Well-Known Member
When it comes to official data, I can point out flaws in capacity of test systems, the effect of rhetoric and rules on people bothering to gettested, and various limitations to the official definitions of things that are being measured.
For example I often moan about the 28 day limit used for the headline death figures but there are other death figures available too which we can use to judge the impact of the 28 day limit in the definition used.
When it comes to testing, there are various limitations including that reinfections havent been counted in the headline figures due to the definition used (eople testing positive for the first time).
I am unable to do much with Badgers vague assertions, their job does not make up for the lack of detail and specifics.
For example I often moan about the 28 day limit used for the headline death figures but there are other death figures available too which we can use to judge the impact of the 28 day limit in the definition used.
When it comes to testing, there are various limitations including that reinfections havent been counted in the headline figures due to the definition used (eople testing positive for the first time).
I am unable to do much with Badgers vague assertions, their job does not make up for the lack of detail and specifics.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Plus exact numbers dont actually matter much, compared to trends and overall magnitude. And there are other forms of disease surveillance available which can give us strong clues about trends and trajectories and scale of infection.
We also have percentage positivity rates which give further clues and demonstrate how much testing takes place compared to how much needs to take place to stand a better chance of capturing closer to every case.
We also have percentage positivity rates which give further clues and demonstrate how much testing takes place compared to how much needs to take place to stand a better chance of capturing closer to every case.
I work on the Covid project. Testing and vaccinations, plus attempting to educate the anti lot. Figures are logged in a spreadsheet for reporting. So I know what is excluded and what is under reported.
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
Tbf mate they put a 'protective ring' around care homes while our Death Secretary was fucking his taxpayer funded bird behind his wife's back.
Shock and amazed that the government lie
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
That's interesting. Could you give us any ballpark figures? How extensively are the government manipulating the numbers down? Say in percentage terms.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
I believe what Badgers is saying. I'm just after some more insight is all.
Examples...
The military and emergency services are no longer included.
Those double jabbed are not included.
We already know the 28 day plus deaths are not included.
Also ACTUAL positive cases are not all being added.
elbows
Well-Known Member
When I say I cant do much with your claims, its because I'd need to know the details of all the exclusion criteria, and I doubt it would be sensible for you to provide that so I cant take these thoughts further.
It might not make much difference anyway because I am well aware that narrow definitions reduce numbers, and I already account for the fact that many measures are undercounts. Plus many of the limitations are freely acknowledged, eg when I read a report about hospital infections, the authors usually acknowledge that various sorts of cases will have been missed by their methodologies.
Some of the limitations would not matter so much if our media didnt cling to certain sorts of daily figures at the expense of the broader known picture or alternative counts. The death totals wind me up in particular, since the 28 day limited one is tens of thousands lower than the death certificate ones and I dont even expect death certificates to capture the picture properly either. Nor do authorities, which is why total excess deaths is a measure used in all sorts of circumstances to get a view of an event that other data wont capture properly.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Not included in what figure?
pug
Well-Known Member
Fucking scruffy cunt needs to comb his hair.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yep. I have elevated my mask-wearing to bloody-minded mask-wearing. I'm just waiting for the first twat to chip in with some sort of comment...
elbows
Well-Known Member
I could not describe deaths as creeping up, although lags in data mean I will only notice such an increase later if it happened.
Hospitalisations are oscillating around, I will dig into whether they are creeping up in some ways later, on another thread.
Cases are certainly creeping up.
And it was certainly no surprise that the fall in hospitalisations was much more modest than the post-July 14th fall in cases, because a lot of the biggest drops in cases were in age groups who dont end up in hospital as much.
We know that cases who have also tested positive in the past are not counted in the current data. But I dont currently buy the idea that double-jabbed people who test positive arent being included. Well ones who have caught it in the past and also been double jabbed wont be included, but those with no previous record of infection should. A nice scandal could be made of things if they really tried to exclude vaccinated people from the positive case figures, and I would have expected people who work within that system to complained to the press if that were really the case. Because normally when trying to limit numbers by using narrow definitions, there needs to be some justification of the use of the narrow definition in order to keep people within the system on board, and not get in trouble with others on the outside when they hear about it. What possible justification is there for not including double-jabbed people in the figures for people testing positive?
Plus such figures certainly show up when we look at new variant technical briefings. The following data isnt anything close to the full picture, just a small fraction, because it only include cases which have met their criteria for being confirmed or provisionally Delta, but still there are plenty of double-vaccinated people in the data:
about fifteen minutes
Not defending Johnson here but the time his watch is set at proves nothing.
At the very least it proves he doesn't know how it works
Surprised his flies were up and he had his shoes on the right feet.
