When I was an undergrad, I had an internship at a Federal Agency. My summer task was to look at certain data and detect trends. I brought to my boss the data that showed there were two deaths out of 100,000 in one year, and the next year there were three deaths out of 100,000. So, even if you’ve never had a course In statistics, you can see that there was no ‘statistically significant’ increase, right? But my boss exclaimed, “Great! That’s a 50% increase - we can get funding to study that!”
That sums up the ‘government mindset’ right there. Yikes.
You don’t believe data—you test data. You're genuinely screwed the moment you decide that data is something to be used to substantiate words like believe or disbelieve.
In other words; if it's not falsifiable it is digital detritus.
I worked at a government agency for ten years and I can tell you that all kinds of black magic and dark arts were employed to get numbers that made people look good, irrespective of actual performance.
As someone who's followed the climate science debate for 15 years I am not surprised a single iota that the government lackeys are putting their thumbs on the scale. My default position on every claim these days, particularly when the solution is more taxes and less liberty, is "I don't f#cking believe you".
It's served me well over the years and I'm sure it will continue to in the future.
There's also the problem of insentives. As Joel Smalley pointed out, his vaccination recoreds and many of his friends are not accurate. He is listed on the NHS database as being vaccinated as are his freinds, when accually they are not. GPs are being paid to vaccinate so if they 'bump up' their numbers who is to know? Unless someone complains and then they just say it was a clerical error. We need to know how many people this effects but that would need our public health serivice who want to know the truth.
Every experienced manager knows by painful experience that most internal performance data is manipulated/slanted/fabricated/wrong because it comes from those whose performance is being evaluated. As a long time manufacturing turn-around manager I followed the mantra, "Man with one watch only thinks he knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure. Man with three watches can make reasonable guess."
EDIT: As an example, in a paper product manufacturing business much of the financial statement in dollars can be tested against a statement in pounds and against a statement in hours. Hidden disparities become readily apparent.
“Vaccines are safe and effective”. If you take that as a core pillar of the belief system that supports the church of public health, it explains everything they do. You don’t need to read the papers or listen to their spokespeople. They will only publish papers that prove that “vaccines are safe and effective. “. Anything else would be heretical.
I'm not sure that leaving it to private companies to collect the data would be any better, and it might actually be worse. The problem isn't entirely with "government" per se. The problem is that selfish private parties, whether government fund-distributors like Fauci, or external "philanthropists" like Gates, have largely taken over the machinery of government and made it their own private tool.
If a big private corporation collects the data, that data will belong to the corporation and will be even harder to get at than government data, for which we can at least launch a reasonable political and legal demand that it be shared. And if it could be left to individual internet cats to collect, then why do they not already have the data anyway?
What we really want, I believe, is a system like what the Founders strove for: a government so divided against itself that the interests of each center of power would check the selfishness of every other center of power.
Instead of abolishing the alphabet agencies, perhaps we should divide them out by state, constitutionally prohibit them from receiving either private or federal funding, make it a personal felony for any officer thereof to invest in, or later accept employment in, any business their agency regulates, and to strictly divide the Office of Data Collection from the Office of Policy.
then there are the people, and i suspect there are a lot of them, who got fake vaccine cards in order to keep their jobs. until that population is included where it belongs- in the unvaccinated category- all bets are off
When I was an undergrad, I had an internship at a Federal Agency. My summer task was to look at certain data and detect trends. I brought to my boss the data that showed there were two deaths out of 100,000 in one year, and the next year there were three deaths out of 100,000. So, even if you’ve never had a course In statistics, you can see that there was no ‘statistically significant’ increase, right? But my boss exclaimed, “Great! That’s a 50% increase - we can get funding to study that!”
That sums up the ‘government mindset’ right there. Yikes.
You don’t believe data—you test data. You're genuinely screwed the moment you decide that data is something to be used to substantiate words like believe or disbelieve.
In other words; if it's not falsifiable it is digital detritus.
Let’s always know... knowledge is not the same as wisdom. The word “expert” now means nothing to me.
Wasn't there a book entitled: How to Lie with Statistics ?
I worked at a government agency for ten years and I can tell you that all kinds of black magic and dark arts were employed to get numbers that made people look good, irrespective of actual performance.
As someone who's followed the climate science debate for 15 years I am not surprised a single iota that the government lackeys are putting their thumbs on the scale. My default position on every claim these days, particularly when the solution is more taxes and less liberty, is "I don't f#cking believe you".
It's served me well over the years and I'm sure it will continue to in the future.
There's also the problem of insentives. As Joel Smalley pointed out, his vaccination recoreds and many of his friends are not accurate. He is listed on the NHS database as being vaccinated as are his freinds, when accually they are not. GPs are being paid to vaccinate so if they 'bump up' their numbers who is to know? Unless someone complains and then they just say it was a clerical error. We need to know how many people this effects but that would need our public health serivice who want to know the truth.
Fox-conducted review of henhouse safety measures finds no issues, more taxpayer funds needed to assess long-term
We need to build tribes. In a tribal society killing or maiming a member of a tribe is a problem, in a state society apparently not.
As you read this, keep in mind that they do this with climate data, ALL vax data and "gun violence" data as well. Smoke and mirrors.
Every experienced manager knows by painful experience that most internal performance data is manipulated/slanted/fabricated/wrong because it comes from those whose performance is being evaluated. As a long time manufacturing turn-around manager I followed the mantra, "Man with one watch only thinks he knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure. Man with three watches can make reasonable guess."
EDIT: As an example, in a paper product manufacturing business much of the financial statement in dollars can be tested against a statement in pounds and against a statement in hours. Hidden disparities become readily apparent.
Also.... if you’re in the right... they should be gladly very open and upfront. But they aren’t doing that. Sad
What would we do without super-sleuth super-cats? Bravo to you and your eagle-eyed compatriots!
“Vaccines are safe and effective”. If you take that as a core pillar of the belief system that supports the church of public health, it explains everything they do. You don’t need to read the papers or listen to their spokespeople. They will only publish papers that prove that “vaccines are safe and effective. “. Anything else would be heretical.
I'm not sure that leaving it to private companies to collect the data would be any better, and it might actually be worse. The problem isn't entirely with "government" per se. The problem is that selfish private parties, whether government fund-distributors like Fauci, or external "philanthropists" like Gates, have largely taken over the machinery of government and made it their own private tool.
If a big private corporation collects the data, that data will belong to the corporation and will be even harder to get at than government data, for which we can at least launch a reasonable political and legal demand that it be shared. And if it could be left to individual internet cats to collect, then why do they not already have the data anyway?
What we really want, I believe, is a system like what the Founders strove for: a government so divided against itself that the interests of each center of power would check the selfishness of every other center of power.
Instead of abolishing the alphabet agencies, perhaps we should divide them out by state, constitutionally prohibit them from receiving either private or federal funding, make it a personal felony for any officer thereof to invest in, or later accept employment in, any business their agency regulates, and to strictly divide the Office of Data Collection from the Office of Policy.
then there are the people, and i suspect there are a lot of them, who got fake vaccine cards in order to keep their jobs. until that population is included where it belongs- in the unvaccinated category- all bets are off