I have pointed out to the Expose that the graphs they plot are inconsistent. They are cherry picking.
For example for the third dose or booster less than 21 days is used for the graphs for age groups 50 to 59 year olds and above but not for more than 21 days as used for the graphs for first and second doses or younger age groups. Another …
I have pointed out to the Expose that the graphs they plot are inconsistent. They are cherry picking.
For example for the third dose or booster less than 21 days is used for the graphs for age groups 50 to 59 year olds and above but not for more than 21 days as used for the graphs for first and second doses or younger age groups. Another inconsistency is the use of the unreliable first dose less than 21 days ago for April 2022 in 80 to 89 year olds - this is the hint that something is amiss. There are more like this.
When I present their graphs to others who actually check the graphs against the data and see these inconsistencies then all of their efforts are typically rejected as unreliable and misleading.
I have pointed out to the Expose that the graphs they plot are inconsistent. They are cherry picking.
For example for the third dose or booster less than 21 days is used for the graphs for age groups 50 to 59 year olds and above but not for more than 21 days as used for the graphs for first and second doses or younger age groups. Another inconsistency is the use of the unreliable first dose less than 21 days ago for April 2022 in 80 to 89 year olds - this is the hint that something is amiss. There are more like this.
When I present their graphs to others who actually check the graphs against the data and see these inconsistencies then all of their efforts are typically rejected as unreliable and misleading.