Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 08:48:06 AM

Quote from: Jet Cash on September 26, 2020, 02:13:17 PM

ll they need to do is to increase the number of tests, and turn up the replication factor, and suddenly we have 5 times ad many infections

I disagree with the rest of your post, but your point about number of positive cases being dependent on the extent of testing is of course valid, and it infuriates me when I see media reports that don't take this into account. Of course testing is much higher now than it was back in April/May, and this means more confirmed cases. Charts such as the below are overly simplistic and very misleading. I don't know if this is sensationalism or incompetence - perhaps, probably, a bit of both.

_{https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/covid-cases-and-deaths-today-coronavirus-uk-map}

The similarly-based chart of deaths shows a trend and figure so low as to suggest the pandemic is over. Obviously its not, but the real future threat-level is now impossible to ascertain. The argument has moved on to what actual measurable damage (to lives and health, ignore the economy) the response to the pandemic is doing, versus the true threat from the virus. I don't know the answer to that.

Statistics have now virtually ceased to be a vehicle to show truth, but rather a means to persuade from a particular point of view.

This was inevitable once the digital age became fully-fledged, because there are an infinite number of ways of presenting the same 'raw' data.

When you start with a particular goal you can always find a graphic or chart to back it up.

Going back to the evidence of ones own senses, actual physical interactions, and logical commonsense seems to be the only way to get a balanced perspective. It is unfortunate to have turned out this way, because digital data should have ushered in a golden-age of genuinely helpful statistics. Most people just seem to be confused, and there are really no political points to be scored in the long-run.