"in order for that new number to have any accuracy at all then it is logically necessary to have been recording the correct type of clinical pneumonia cases all along" Agree. In fact I already agree with you on this point from above. Its not blatant ...
It was an obvious misrepresentation. Only in your mind. If it was they would not be so obvious about it.
If one provides numbers and makes clears that the numbers represent those who have been tested and shown to have the virus, then that is not dishonest. Did they say that the figures they had before unequivocally represented all people who had the illness? ...
"Exactly. But because they are only able to do a limited number of nucleic genetic tests daily, they must have known the figures being reported up until yesterday that relied only on these tests were completely bogus." Not bogus. Unproven. Its no different...
"In order for this new much higher number to make any sense, it is entirely reasonable to assume they had been collecting this data all along, but were massaging the public numbers much lower for political reasons. " Agree they have these numbers all along...
I have no love for the totalitarian Chinese government, but to be honest, I think they have been reasonably transparent in handling this episode. Most governments would probably wait for a month or so before announcing something like this ---there is ...
What is particularly troubling to me is why the Labour Party (and the Greens and NZ First) are doing hardly anything about this. There is a deafening silence. Why the heck are they not raising a huge public clamour, particularly around Jian Yang, and ...
Recent Comments