Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Tooooks, Mar 15, 2020.
You're choosing the single highest day which is almost certainly down to when cases are reported. Click on the 7 day moving average and you'll see it was much lower. Then look at Daily New Deaths. That's not anything I'd call a wave.
So 5000 cases by June 1 is not a wave?
How many tests were they doing and what level of magnification were they using? Because the test produces false positives. If you test a bunch of people you're going to get 'cases'. But both the cases and the deaths were pretty much a flat line for months. Now they've suddenly picked up which indicates a low level of exposure previously.
So by this logic you can opportunistically challenge any numbers you like. Do you know what the testing and magnification rates were now and back then?
I don't need to know. I'm not claiming anything controversial here. I'm just explaining how you can have 'cases' but a very low level of exposure in the community. When you look at all the data, including the deaths being about one a day for months then that's what this looks like. Which is why there are more vulnerable people now.
Boomers lives matter.
I'm coming for ya!
I just did. What does it mean?
We're all going to die.
I'm A Virus Baby?
There are only two things certain in this world - death and Parramatta shitting the bed.
It was you who introduced the reference to 'what happened earlier in the year', and it took about 15 questions to get you to articulate what your point was. I agree that there are more vulnerable people now. But the assertion that they didn't have a first wave seems pretty odd to me. It was at least a large ripple.
I’d call it more of a ‘thing’.
Actually in my second post to someone who doesn't believe a word I say on this I told him to go look at the spikes (waves) earlier in the year. If he'd done that he'd have seen there was none. A spike or wave has a rise and fall, but this didn't. This is rock steady at about one death per day up until now. Now it's jacked up which is also evidence that the levels of infection were low from the start. Why would I waste time explaining that to someone who has demonstrated that any evidence he doesn't like will just be ignored? When you asked the question I told you exactly what I meant and I'm surprised you've got an issue with it.
One of these options keeps me alive. Oh, and living in a Covid free state helps.
We all know that curried sausages is the only thing that keeps you alive.
It's the simple things in life, mate. A time when you could eat dirt as a kid and roam the streets until sundown.
Not these days. The world has become an evil evil place.
Yeh, you told him to go and look at the spikes from earlier in the year, with no further info, no discussion of what you thought they indicated, just left people to guess. I had no idea what your exact point was. It could have been a) they had some spikes earlier in the year and they settled down, b) they had some spikes earlier in the year but not many died after them, c) they had some spikes earlier this year but they were really small relative to the population.....and about a dozen other permutations. It would just be simpler if you said 'they didn't have many cases earlier and thus they are copping up the khaiber now'
Separate names with a comma.