Yes indeed, what I said was a fleeting suspicions was a fleeting suspicion. Are we really at the point in online discourse where being literal is so foreign to

Yes indeed, what I said was a fleeting suspicions was a fleeting suspicion. Are we really at the point in online discourse where being literal is so foreign to people that it needs to be attacked? I’m basing my suspension on the reported article, I’m not making any accusations. Though as has been reported, there have been issues where poor reporting of numbers (like reporting deaths by date reported instead of date of death), led to significantly distorted interpretations, which good data scientists would tell you that you need to avoid. This is similar to someone making a “technically true” graph with an offset origin to make it look like there is a huge relative difference between two columns. In that case how you make your visuals matter. And if someone tells you that you need to “manually change the origin to zero” and you won’t do it because your report suits your narrative, then that’s an issue. If it’s actually the case that she wanted to keep showing deaths by date reported instead of date of death because a spike appearing in the less acccurate report made it look like deaths spiked after opening up, then that’s a valid issue. But again, this is all just speculation backing a suspicion and it will be interesting to see their response. Her report is extremely light on details and can’t really be described as whistleblowing as much as just someone venting personal frustrations online and making currenlty unbased accusations. That may change if she provides further details to back her claims of cause.