News1 min ago
Uk Highest In Europe
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You know where I was recently DT? Yes. In 50 years of visiting the place I have never encountered so many visitors who were not there for the arts, water activities, or the cerebral delights of the region. It was all theme park, selfie opportunity types. Manchester, Bolton, Salford, and half of the new and exciting additions to Lancashire were there. Indoors without masks, no concept of shared space or muted vocal communications. I will not come again until they can go back to Spain or visit their extended families in Asia.
//What were we not telt?//
Actually the term is not quite right, Corby. It's not so much what we were not told (though that's the way the press termed it), but rather the way what we were told was illustrated. That said, there was a deliberate attempt, IMHO, to conceal salient facts from people who are not, perhaps, too well versed with graphical representation of data.
To show you what I mean, here’s a couple of examples of the blood-curdling graphs which Prof Whitty pasted up on the wall on Monday evening:
https:/
The first is a classic example of manipulating line graphs to emphasise what you want your audience to believe. In this case the graph that was presented snipped a bit off the full picture, the scale increased by a factor of eight, and the result was a terrifying rise in cases which, if it was compared to the worst situation earlier in the year, would present itself as a minor, fairly insignificant blip. A similar method of manipulation is to chop the top of the graph off and begin the vertical axis from as high as figure as you can get away with, thus emphasising the severity of any increases or decreases.
The second is certainly not manipulative. It demonstrates what it says – the change in percentages of older and younger people admitted to hospital. But it leaves the audience the impression that the virus is hospitalising far more younger people now than it was a few months ago – just the message the Prof wanted to get across. But of course this isn’t true. If the absolute numbers are examined it will be seen that the numbers (in both age groups) are insignificant when compared to January. But we don’t want “Gullible” Joe Public to see that, do we?
I've spent a ot of my working life preparing - and viewing - such presentation material. I know most of the tricks (you can never say "all"). Many of the public don't and they are being taken for a ride. These manipulations demonstrate to me that the fear factor which was used so effectively fifteen months ago continues and is being used – disingenuously – to sustain that fear and maintain support for restrictions. I can think of no other reason why such deceit should have been employed.
Actually the term is not quite right, Corby. It's not so much what we were not told (though that's the way the press termed it), but rather the way what we were told was illustrated. That said, there was a deliberate attempt, IMHO, to conceal salient facts from people who are not, perhaps, too well versed with graphical representation of data.
To show you what I mean, here’s a couple of examples of the blood-curdling graphs which Prof Whitty pasted up on the wall on Monday evening:
https:/
The first is a classic example of manipulating line graphs to emphasise what you want your audience to believe. In this case the graph that was presented snipped a bit off the full picture, the scale increased by a factor of eight, and the result was a terrifying rise in cases which, if it was compared to the worst situation earlier in the year, would present itself as a minor, fairly insignificant blip. A similar method of manipulation is to chop the top of the graph off and begin the vertical axis from as high as figure as you can get away with, thus emphasising the severity of any increases or decreases.
The second is certainly not manipulative. It demonstrates what it says – the change in percentages of older and younger people admitted to hospital. But it leaves the audience the impression that the virus is hospitalising far more younger people now than it was a few months ago – just the message the Prof wanted to get across. But of course this isn’t true. If the absolute numbers are examined it will be seen that the numbers (in both age groups) are insignificant when compared to January. But we don’t want “Gullible” Joe Public to see that, do we?
I've spent a ot of my working life preparing - and viewing - such presentation material. I know most of the tricks (you can never say "all"). Many of the public don't and they are being taken for a ride. These manipulations demonstrate to me that the fear factor which was used so effectively fifteen months ago continues and is being used – disingenuously – to sustain that fear and maintain support for restrictions. I can think of no other reason why such deceit should have been employed.
The German variant has been known about for decades.
https:/
https:/
Zero Covid, eh? Once again I refer the Hon. Members to my OP of June 2nd. And I commend it to the House!
https:/
https:/
I have been of the same opinion for some time, 10CS. It is clear to me that last Monday's announcement of delayed relaxations only goes to confirm that. Meanwhile another little snippet you probably won't hear mentioned on the BBC:
https:/
"In papers submitted to the Government this week which ultimately led to Freedom Day being pushed back to July 19, modellers at Imperial College London warned that there could 200,000 more fatalities in the UK by next June. While that model looked at a 'worst-case' scenario, other universities forecasting the crisis for SAGE said it was realistic to expect 40,000 to die in that time."
Then...
"The new vaccine efficacy estimates, based on real-world data of 14,000 Delta cases in England, were made public just minutes after SAGE's frightening forecasts were published on Monday, which led many to assume it was too late to use PHE's data in its models. Yet Dr Susan Hopkins, the deputy director of PHE's national infection service, admitted to MPs yesterday that the Government knew about the figures last Friday. It suggests ministers and their scientific advisers pressed ahead with publishing the calculations, which strengthened the argument for delaying June 21, despite knowing there was more accurate data available."
"...Imperial College London warned that there could 200,000 more fatalities in the UK by next June."???
Just what is fed into these models that these people are using? 200k is more than one and half times the number of deaths already recorded (currently running at 10 a day) when, during the period most of them occurred, nobody had been vaccinated. Now, with more than 30m people fully vaccinated and 12m more having had their first shot, we're expected to believe that the death toll will more than double. So what was the point of the vaccination programme?
Once again it seems clear that the government had made up its mind to prolong restrictions whilst knowing that their "scientists" had different data. Instead they continue to present ludicrous "worst case scenarios" of blood-curdling death tolls presented by the two Doctors Death to confuse and mislead the public and justify their continued restrictions. The people of this country are being taken for absolute fools by a government enthralled by a bunch of discredited ego-centric lunatics. Somebody needs to get a grip before the UK sinks without trace.
https:/
"In papers submitted to the Government this week which ultimately led to Freedom Day being pushed back to July 19, modellers at Imperial College London warned that there could 200,000 more fatalities in the UK by next June. While that model looked at a 'worst-case' scenario, other universities forecasting the crisis for SAGE said it was realistic to expect 40,000 to die in that time."
Then...
"The new vaccine efficacy estimates, based on real-world data of 14,000 Delta cases in England, were made public just minutes after SAGE's frightening forecasts were published on Monday, which led many to assume it was too late to use PHE's data in its models. Yet Dr Susan Hopkins, the deputy director of PHE's national infection service, admitted to MPs yesterday that the Government knew about the figures last Friday. It suggests ministers and their scientific advisers pressed ahead with publishing the calculations, which strengthened the argument for delaying June 21, despite knowing there was more accurate data available."
"...Imperial College London warned that there could 200,000 more fatalities in the UK by next June."???
Just what is fed into these models that these people are using? 200k is more than one and half times the number of deaths already recorded (currently running at 10 a day) when, during the period most of them occurred, nobody had been vaccinated. Now, with more than 30m people fully vaccinated and 12m more having had their first shot, we're expected to believe that the death toll will more than double. So what was the point of the vaccination programme?
Once again it seems clear that the government had made up its mind to prolong restrictions whilst knowing that their "scientists" had different data. Instead they continue to present ludicrous "worst case scenarios" of blood-curdling death tolls presented by the two Doctors Death to confuse and mislead the public and justify their continued restrictions. The people of this country are being taken for absolute fools by a government enthralled by a bunch of discredited ego-centric lunatics. Somebody needs to get a grip before the UK sinks without trace.
