3 ms·
Well to be frank I clicked a handful of them and got tired of trying to decipher graphs that didn’t end up supporting this claim.
by hamburglar 4y ago
Well to be frank I clicked a handful of them and got tired of trying to decipher graphs that didn’t end up supporting this claim.
- jryhjythtr 4y agoReminding ourselves that you asked to be "pointed to some (graphs predicting more than 6 months)": It is not clear when the image in first result was published, but given that it includes error bars for dates from March 2020 onwards, I would assume this is the result of modelling performed earlier than March 2020. It covers until October 2020. Result number two is a direct link to this paper: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-res... It was published in March 2020, and predicts data till March 2021 Result number three is a direct link to this news story (with an ironic headline, given result number 4 below): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 It was published in November 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 Result number four is a direct link to this news story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 It was published in July 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 This is the garbage that was fed to the UK populace on a daily basis - it was like the "modellers" had taken charge. Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation?
- hamburglar 4y ago> Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation? I accept that they exist. I don't accept that we were "bombarded" with them. This is, of course, a US perspective, so perhaps your mileage may vary.