erolz66 wrote:I think the idea pushed by some here that globally we are over the peak of infections is refuted by the simple facts.
Another classic ErLolz straw man!
I didn't claim we were over the peak, I explained why the numbers are increasing when many countries clearly are past the peak - there is plenty of data available to prove that. Some of the 'late starters' happen to have very high populations.
erolz66 wrote:The over all findings were not totally discredited. The numbers for Spain were revised upwards by Spain after the original article was published and like responsible seekers of truth the FT then corrected their report. That is what people interested in the truth do and what people like yourself only interested in propaganda and slogans do not do. Every point made in that article that I highlighted remains exactly the same with the pre revised Spanish figure and with the post ones. Your claim that the report is totally discredited just shows how much truth matters to you.
Yes they were, they changed the chart to one which did not prove the content of the report (i.e. that infections are closely related to Lockdown date)...
But the data told a completely different story. The link between lockdown day infections and deaths had broken down. The US, for instance, had a much greater infection rate on lockdown day (30 infections per million) than the Netherlands (7.5 per million), but suffered far fewer excess deaths. Although the new FT chart had a regression line drawn through the data points, it was clear that there was no statistical correlation between estimated lockdown infections and a country’s excess deaths. You can see from looking at the FT’s scatter plot that the regression coefficient (R-squared) for its new, revised chart is very low and not statistically meaningful. Most of the dots are quite far away from the regression line, whereas in the first chart the dots all cluster around the line.
Clicky...
Nice try...
[/quote]
