Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #161
It's not an exaggeration because those were legitimate cases, even if they're no longer infectious. The only question is if the reporting indicates the current infected total, which it doesn't and shouldn't. Excluding people from the counts is not scientifically ethical. It attempts to misleadingly downplay the risk. We don't know when they were infected, so the only reasonable thing to do is report them when discovered since that is the only factual date you have.
Again, you are in no position to cast stones at anyone's ethics.
The way that the numbers are being used, the way that you are defending them being used, is deliberately misleading and deceptive.
Some times, the most powerful lie is a partial truth, told out of context, and this is a fine example of that.
We're supposed to be frightened into submission, by statistics that willfully include counts of those who do not contribute at all to the threat of which we are supposed to be frightened.